Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in. the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Manchester Ship Canal Bill. Bill committed.

AIR MINISTRY (CROYDON AERODROME: EXTENSION) BILL.

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of 4th March, That in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

Air Ministry (Croydon Aerodrome Extension) Bill.

Port of London Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ancient Monuments Preservation Order Confirmation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DYESTUFFS.

Mr. PALIN: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the price of synthetic indigo in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and India?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As the answer to the question contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The price of synthetic indigo varies considerably with quantity and also according to the source from which it is obtained. I understand, however, that the prices for ordinary quantities in the markets named are as follows:

Great Britain, 1s. 3d. per lb.

France, 12 francs per kilo.

Germany, 2 gold marks per kilo. Italy, 10 lira per kilo.

India, 5s. 6d. per lb.

The above quotations are for 20 per cent. paste, except in the case of India. where synthetic indigo is usually sold in the form of 100 per cent. powder.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee publish any particulars giving the names of the dyes for the import of which licences have been granted; and, if not, what safeguard exists against unfair discrimination between various applicants for licences?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Particulars of the dyestuffs for which licences are granted are not published by the Advisory Licensing Committee. As regards the second part of the question, the safeguard is the constitution of the Committee, and the fact that each application is considered separately.

Captain BENN: Suppose that one firm objects to other firms getting the dyes which it has been refused, how can its doubts be set at rest?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Such cases do not, in fact, arise, because the Advisory Committee, on which the makers are in a minority, treats all applications alike.

Captain BENN: 10.
asked the President el the Board of Trade whether it is the practice of the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee, when asked for permission to import, to require the applicant to disclose the names of his customers and thereafter to furnish these names to the applicants' competitors; and, in general, on what grounds the Committee withhold licences?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I presume the hon. and gallant Member's question relates to applications other than those made by actual users. It is not the general practice of the Committee to require applicants in such cases to disclose the names of their customers, but in certain cases, where licences would not normally be granted, it has been found necessary to require that the application shall be made by the actual user. As regards the second part of the question, licences are refused when the Committee are satisfied that adequate substitutes are available at. reasonable prices from British manufacturers.

Captain BENN: Is it the case that some people, who allege that they cannot carry on their business without foreign imported dyes, are refused licences?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I think not. The practice of the Committee is to find out whether a suitable British substitute is available. If there is not, a licence is granted.

Captain BENN: I beg to give notice that, on the Adjournment to-night, I shall call attention to the hardships under this system.

Mr. FENBY: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to continue the appointment of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, as sole agents in this country for the distribution of dyestuffs taken from Germany on reparation account?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The operation of the reparation provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, so far as they related to dyestuffs, ceased on the 15th January last. The agency service of the British Dyestuffs Corporation will be continued until the existing stock of reparation dyestuffs has been liquidated.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any decision has been arrived at as to whether, under the London Agreement of 30th August, 1924, the Government will continue to indent on Germany for bulk quantities, or at all, of dyestuffs on reparation account as was the case up to the 10th January, 1925, under the Peace Treaty?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The London Agreement provides that con
tracts for deliveries in kind (including dyestuffs) which are to be treated as being on reparation account, shall be made under ordinary commercial conditions, that is, by contracts between buyers in the Allied countries and the German producers. It is not the intention of the Government to make any call on Germany for dyestuffs on Government account.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will this whole business be modified when we get the proposed pact with Germany and France, and they are secured '?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is too hypothetical a question.

GERMANY (TRADE AGREEMENT).

Sir ALFRED BUTT: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Trade Agreement with Germany will come into force; and whether, pending its ratification, this country's products are receiving most-favoured-nation treatment from Germany?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Treaty will come into force when ratified, and before ratifications are exchanged the parties are required by Clause 8 of the Protocol to pass the necessary legislative and administrative Measures. The only Measure which will have to be passed in this country is the Former Enemy Allens (Disabilities Removal) Bill, which has already been introduced in this House. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

PARIS EXHIBITION.

Sir A. BUTT: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government are taking any part in the Paris Exhibition of 1923; whether the British Pavilion is being paid for by His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether he can state the amount it is proposed to spend?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary Overseas Trade Department): Yes. His Majesty's Government are taking part in the Paris Exhibition of 1925. The cost of the British Pavilion is included in the total expenditure estimated to amount to £62,500. It is expected that that amount will be reduced by a sum of approximately £12,500 which will probably be obtained from exhibitors and concession-
aires in the British section and from proceeds of sales at the end of the exhibition.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will this matter come before Parliament except in the Estimates? Will you have to seek authorisation to spend this money?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. I think it will be taken in the Estimates, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will then have an opportunity of raising the question.

Mr. MACKINDER: What method is being adopted to bring this scheme before the various producers with a view to their being represented?

Mr. SAMUEL: We shall do everything in our power. If my hon. Friend can suggest anything helpful we shall be glad to know of it.

GERMANY (TRADE STATISTICS).

Mr. FENBY: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the official figures of the import and export trade of Germany in 1913, 1923 and 1924, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer includes a table of figures, the hon. Member will, perhaps, not object to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following particulars have been extracted from the German official trade returns:—

Year.
Imports (*Special Trade).
Exports (*Special Trade).



1,000 Marks
1,000 Marks



(Gold).
(Gold).


1913
10,769,686
10,097,234


1923
6,144,245
6,102,273


1924
9,135,059
6,533,419

*"Special trade" means imports for home consumption, and exports of domestic produce.

The exports statistics for 1923 and 1924 are exclusive of deliveries on Reparation account under the Treaty of Versailles.

The particulars relate to the German Wirtschaftsgebiet (Economic Union) which in 1913 included Alsace-Lorraine, Luxemburg, Memel, Dantzig, part of
Poland, part of Slesvig, and the Saar district, all of which are excluded from the scope of the German trade statistics for 1923 and 1924.

It is understood that the particulars included in the totals for 1923 and 1924 in respect of the occupied districts of the Ruhr, etc., are incomplete.

COTTON GOODS (GERMAN IMPORTS).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the restrictions on the importation of British cotton goods into Germany are still enforced; and, seeing that this is contrary to the Treaty recently concluded, will he made representations to the German Government to remove the restrictions?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would remind my hon. Friend that the Treaty has not yet been ratified, and, is, therefore, not yet in force. His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin, however, has recently been in communication with the German Government with a view to securing that licences should be accorded more freely for the importation of British goods of descriptions for which such licences are required.

RAW MATERIALS (IMPORTS).

Mr. FENBY: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total values of imports into the United Kingdom of raw materials from the self-governing Dominions, other British Possessions, and all foreign countries in 1923 and 1924, respectively; what was the value of our re-exports of such produce; and what were the proportions of raw materials derived from each of these sources and retained for home consumption in the United Kingdom?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This answer also contains a table of figures, which I would propose to insert in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement, which has been compiled from the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom for 1923, relates to the class of "Raw Materials and Articles Mainly Unmanufactured":

Country whence Consigned.
Total Imports in 1923.
Re-Exports in 1923.
Net Imports Retained in 1923.


Amount
Proportion



Thousand £.
Thousand £.
Thousand £.
Per cent.


Irish Free State (April—December only)
1,331
67
1,264
0.5


Canada
6,827
1,098
5,729
9.2


Newfoundland
762
8
754
0.3


Union of South Africa
10,351
5,425
4,926
1.9


Australia
25,621
20,195
5,426
2.1


New Zealand
12,231
4,724
7,507
2.9


British India
25,476
4,156
21,320
8.3


Other British Possessions
27,173
12,344
14,829
5.7


Foreign Countries
215,150
18,735
196,415
76.1


Total
324,922
66,752
258,170
100.0

Corresponding particulars for the year 1924 are not yet available.

FINE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state, for any convenient date early in 1921, what was the total capital invested in the fine chemical industry; and what is the corresponding comparable figure to-day?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that I have no means of arriving at the particulars desired by the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman enough information to tell us whether the capital invested has increased or decreased since that date?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The reason why it is impossible to give figures is that a very large number of firms which manufacture fine chemicals also manufacture other kinds of chemicals, and it, would be impossible to take out a proportion of the capital.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot we be told one way or the other? Has recent legislation increased the manufacture in this country or not?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes. There are other questions on that subject on the Paper. Yes, enormously.

MANUFACTURED GOODS (IMPORTS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the
value of manufactured goods imported into this country during 1924 from France, Holland, Belgium and Germany':'

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer contains a table of figures, and I would propose, if my hon. Friend does not object, to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The values of merchandise classed in the trade returns as "Articles wholly or mainly manufactured," imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the year 1924, and registered as consigned from the countries specified, were as follows:

Consigned from
£


France
46,467,000


Netherlands
10,482,000


Belgium
26,876,000


Germany
32,636,000

BRITISH COASTWISE SHIPPING (FOREIGN TONNAGE).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount of foreign tonnage now employed in British coastwise trade; whether he has received any representations on this question from the British shipowners; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In 1924 the net tonnage of foreign ships arriving and departing with cargo in the coasting trade was in round figures 200,000, the
corresponding figure for British ships being 20,000,000. One firm of shipowners has made representations to me in favour of excluding foreign ships from the coasting trade. As at present advised, I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Is it not a fact that most, if not all, foreign countries either differentiate against British tonnage or exclude it altogether from their coastal trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would not like to give a positive and detailed answer in reply to a supplementary question, but it always has been the considered practice of Britain, concurred in and advised by British shipowners, to pursue the practice that we are pursuing.

FORESHORE RIGHTS, ROSS-SHIRE.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that from time immemorial the inhabitants on the western seaboard of Ross-shire have used the seaweed on the seashore for the purpose of cultivating their holdings; that the Board of Trade is now challenging their right to do so; and will he take steps to restrain his subordinates from interference with the inhabitants in their use of a commodity which is of vital importance to them in the cultivation of their holdings?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of the importance of seaweed for agricultural purposes, and that its removal from Crown foreshore has been carried on with the tacit consent of the Board of Trade for many years. I am, however, advised that, for the purposes of safeguarding the Crown's title to the foreshore, formal permission should be obtained, but this will be given freely in most cases, without payment, on application to the Department's local officers.

Mr. MACPHERSON: In view of the fact that only last year the Government gave £100,000 to relieve distress in the Highlands, does my right hon. Friend think it wise at this time to attempt to revive an antiquated and challengeable right of this kind?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would not be in order in discussing the questions of foreshores. The question relates to seaweed. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the seaweed will be available to his constituents in the future as in the past.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 7,927 consignments sampled by the Customs and analysed by the Government chemist under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, during the year ended 31st March, 1924, were found to be liable and how many not liable to duty under this Act?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I have been asked to reply to this question. The information asked for is not available, and I regret that I am unable to authorise the expenditure of the considerable time and labour which would be involved in its preparation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable time and expenditure are involved on the part of the unfortunate merchants who have to wait for consignments of goods before getting on with their business?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is very necessary to take these samples, so that the deterrent effect may induce people to make accurate returns.

Major CRAWFURD: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many, and which, of the 2,000 and more chemicals scheduled as liable to duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, which were not being made in this country at the time the Act came into operation are now being produced here in satisfactory quality and adequate quantity?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is not possible to furnish precise details of the kind asked for by the hon. and gallant Member. I am, however, informed that one company alone is manufacturing over 1,000 of the listed products which it was not manufacturing in 1921, and that the manufacture of some hundreds of products has been commenced by other makers since the passing of the Act.

Major CRAWFURD: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer include the qualifications which I put at the end of the question as to satisfactory quality and adequate quantity?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes: I have every reason to believe that the quality is steadily improving. Practically no complaints about quality are being received. The manufacture is going on in steadily increasing quantities.

Captain BENN: Would the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the evidence to which he has referred?

Mr. SPENCER: is there any truth in the statement that these dyes are being made for turning yellow into blue and transferring from this side of the House to the other?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman is late on the Order Paper. This question relates to chemicals other than dyes. I think it is generally acknowledged throughout the industry that a great advance is being made in this trade.

Captain BENN: But the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to give any actual data?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have given a great deal of actual data.

Major CRAWFURD: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that phenacetin, phenagene, and many other chemicals scheduled as liable to duty in Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, are still not manufactured in this country; and if he will at once order the removal of such articles from the dutiable list in order to lessen the cost to hospitals and similar institutions where they are so largely used?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I would like to state that the second chemical mentioned should be phenazone and not phenagene.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I shall have to give an answer to the revised question on another occasion. The answer I am giving now refers to phenagene. Phenagene does not appear in the list of goods dutiable under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. As regards phenacetin, I am aware that the manufacture in this country is at present sus-
pended. The number of listed products produced in the United Kingdom is steadily increasing, and I am, consequently, not prepared to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to remove articles from the dutiable list.

Mr. LEES SMITH: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it will be an instruction to each Committee appointed under the safeguarding scheme to take into consideration the effect of its decision on the ultimate consumer, or whether the question of consideration or not of the consumers' interests will be left to the discretion of each Committee?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The scope of the reference to the Committee appointed in respect of any application is clearly indicated in the White Paper. As the hon. Member is aware, all duties recommended by a Committee, and approved by the Government, will be submitted to the House of Commons in a Finance Bill.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question: Have the Committees power to investigate this very important question or not?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have given an answer to that question in the second part of my reply. The Committees are to report on the facts referred to in the White Paper and then this House will give its decision on the facts. The House has already pronounced in favour of the general policy and its particular application in each case will again come before Parliament.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Have the Board of Trade yet appointed a Chairman for the Central Committees?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise' out of the question.

Mr. DALTON: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the Committees are not to take into account at all the interests of the consumer?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member is to understand precisely what is in the answer.

Mr. SMITH: As the White Paper to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not instruct the Committees to take
the consumers' interests into account, does not his answer mean that the Committees are not to do so?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My answer means that the Committees are not to go over a roving inquiry, but are to report on the specific facts referred to them.

Captain BENN: 8.
(for Mr. T. THOMSON) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make it a condition, under the Safeguarding of Industries proposals, that no industry shall be entitled to the protection of a tariff which supplies goods for export at a lower price than it supplies the same goods under similar conditions for the home market?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the hon. Member will notice from the White Paper, the comparison which the Committee, to whom any application is referred, will be asked to make, will be between the prices at which foreign goods are being sold, or offered for sale, in the United Kingdom, and the prices at which corresponding goods can be profitably manufactured or produced in this country. Whether the question raised by the hon. Member could arise in connection with the price at which goods can be profitably manufactured in this country, it would be for the Committee, who have to take all relevant circumstances into account, to decide.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving any safeguard against protective duties being used to benefit the foreign consumer and exploit the home consumer

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What the hon. and gallant Gentleman is suggesting is that no facilities should be afforded to a firm or to a trade which is doing its best, in difficult circumstances, to maintain its foreign trade.

Captain BENN: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question? Is it intended to give any safeguard against firms using the duty for the purpose of benefiting the foreign consumer at the expense of the home consumer?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I gave the supplementary reply which I gave after consideration, and I repeat it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ORDNANCE CORPS DEPOT, HEREFORD (POLICE PAY).

Mr. S. ROBERTS: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a recommendation for increased pay for the police at the Royal Army Ordnance Corps Depot, Hereford, was forwarded to the Western Command on the 28th November, 1924; that this document was returned from the Western Command on the 13th February, 1925, with observations on a few minor points; and what was the reason for such delay?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The delay was due to the document in question having, I regret to say, been overlooked in the Western Command Office. The application has recently reached the War Office and I will see that a decision is taken upon it as early as possible.

STAPP COLLEGES (CAMBERLEY AND QUETTA).

Mr. BASIL PETO: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of places for officers in the staff colleges at Camberley and Quetta; the total number of officers in the British and Indian armies below the rank of colonel; and when any addition was last made to the buildings and teaching staff at each establishment?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There are 57 places to be filled each year at the Staff College, Camberley, and 53 at Quetta. The total number of officers in the British and Indian armies below the rank of colonel on 1st January, 1925, was 16,313. Two officers have been added to the pre-war teaching staff at Camberley since the re-opening in April, 1919, and quarters for 21 married officers have been added. Questions as to additions to the teaching staff and buildings at the Staff College, Quetta, should be addressed to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India.

Mr. PETO: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of snaking the staff college accommodation adequate to meet the needs of the Army at the present time?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That, of course, is one of the questions
which has to be and is being considered, but financial limits are imposed here as elsewhere.

NITROGEN FIXATION.

Mr. J. BECKETT: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any report was directly received from the Commission sent to Oppau to investigate German methods of fixation of nitrogen; whether the original Report is in the hands of the War Office and whether it is signed by any or all of the members of the Commission?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Commission reported direct to the Ministry of Munitions, and the documents relating to it are in the custody of the Treasury Surplus Stores, etc., Liquidation Department, and not of the War Office. I am informed that the Report is signed by the Chairman on behalf of the members.

Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the number of members of the Commission?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I believe the report was signed by the Chairman, on behalf of tin members.

Mr. BECKETT: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War the date on which the Government factory for the fixation of nitrogen was sold, the price paid for it, and the name of the purchasers; and whether any members of the Government Commission to Oppau shortly after the Armistice are employed there?

Mr. DALTON: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for War to whom the Government factory at Billingham was sold, and when, and at what price, and what part of this price was held to represent the value of secret information in the possession of the Government regarding German methods of fixing nitrogen from the air?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the name of the firm who purchased the Government factory at Billingham; whether he will state the terms of sale under which it was disposed of; whether the sale was effected by private negotiation or by public advertisement; and whether he can state the original cost of
the factory and the price paid for it at the sale?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Government Nitrogen Factory at Billing-ham was sold by the Minister of Munitions in April, 1920, to Messrs. Brunner Mond & Co., Ltd., for a company to be formed by them. I am informed that it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose the terms of the sale. I have asked the Surplus Stores, Etc., Liquidation Department for information as to the original cost of the factory; reference, is required to documents which are not immediately available. The factory was sold by private treaty, but it was extensively advertised before sale. I have no information as to who is employed at the works.

Major ATTLEE: Did the sale of the factory include the whole of the research work done on behalf of the Government?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I understand this sale took place in 1920, and if the hon. and gallant Member wants further information, I must ask him to put a question down.

Mr. BECKETT: Is it a fact that Lieut.-Colonel C. P. Pollitt, D.S.O., who was a member of the Commission, is a director of Synthetic Ammonia and Nitrates, Limited, who purchased the Government factory?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have not the slightest idea. This sale took place at the Ministry of Munitions in 1920, and I have no personal knowledge of it. If the hon. Member wants more information he should put a question down.

Mr. BECKETT: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment to-morrow night.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Does not this matter relate to the Disposal Board?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes; the whole records were with the Disposal Board, and the reason I could not answer the former question more fully was that the documents are at Manchester in a warehouse.

Sir J. REMNANT: Is it not the custom in this House to refuse to give any details of the transactions of the Disposal Board?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope there is a precedent to that effect.

Mr. HARDIE: Did the advertisement of the sale of the factory contain any announcement that, along with the buildings, these secret documents were for sale?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I really have not the slightest idea.

Mr. HARDIE: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to have an idea?

Mr. SPEAKER: This matter is four or five years old, and involves some little research.

DEATH SENTENCES.

Mr. THURTLE: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for War for what offences 12 soldiers were sentenced to death during the years 1920, 1921 and 1922, as shown on page 50 of the General Annual Report of the British Army for the year ended 30th September, 1924?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In eleven of these eases the offence was murder: in the twelfth case, the offence was mutiny. All the executions were for offences committed abroad; nine out of the twelve men belonged to native or locally raised units.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

WAR OFFICE STAFF (TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP).

Mr. AMMON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his Department requires an explicit relinquishment of trade union membership from all candidates on the establishment?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Speaking generally in the case of outstation establishments, severance of connection with Trade Unions is a condition attaching to appointments on an established, i.e., pensionable list. The rule is of long standing in the case of foremen and others holding supervisory industrial posts in the ordnance factories and elsewhere, and it was applied with the concurrence of the staff side of the War Office Whitley Council when, more recently, pension rights were extended to certain other classes.

Mr. KELLY: Was this rule in operation prior to 1923?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, yes.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Was it in operation under the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Certainly.

CHEMICAL WARFARE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT.

Mr. AMMON: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number and nature of the staff employed at the Chemical Warfare Research Department and the cost of the Department for each financial year since its inception?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The staff employed at the Chemical Warfare Experimental Station, Porton, consists of 22 naval, military and Air Force officers and 26 civilian scientists, together with certain subordinate staff. As regards the cost of the establishment, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

Figures of cost of the establishment during the War are not available, but post-War expenditure has been, approximately, as follows:

£


1919–20
90,000


1920–21
54,000


1921–22
81,000


1922–23
87,000


1923–24
103,000

The cost during the current year is estimated at, approximately, £115,000, increasing in 1925–26 to £132,000.

COMMON SENIORITY LISTS.

Mr. DALTON: 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in what Departments, if any, has the question of common seniority between men and women been under consideration, in accordance with the recommendations of the Report of the Committee appointed by the Treasury in 1922 to examine and report on the application of the principle of common seniority lists for men and women; and what action the Treasury has taken to bring the recommendations to the notice of Departments?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): A draft Treasury Circular bringing to the notice of heads of Departments the Report of the Committee to consider the application to the reorganisation classes of the principle of common seniority lists for men and women was discussed on the motion of the staff side at the last meeting of the National Whitley Council and at their request further consideration was postponed until the next meeting which will be held shortly.

MONEYLENDERS.

Mr. B. SMITH: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by Mr. Nield, Registrar at Liverpool Bankruptcy Court, on Tuesday, 4th March, to the effect that it was a common practice in that district for moneylenders to take pension warrants as security for loans and that this practice was illegal: and, if so, whether he will have inquiries made with a view to prosecuting the usurers who are breaking the law?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham (Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Pownall) yesterday.

Mr. THURTLE: 32.
(for Mr. LANSBURY) asked the Secretary of State for 'War whether his attention has been directed to the remarks of Mr. Registrar Nield, at the Liverpool Bankruptcy Court, on 3rd March, 1925, that the War Office were parties to the financial troubles of officers by issuing to them drafts for their pensions 12 months ahead, on which loans were advanced by moneylenders; and whether the rank and file are entitled to receive drafts for their pensions similarly 12 months in advance?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As regards the remarks made by the Registrar of the Liverpool Bankruptcy Court, I would observe that an officer who elects to receive his retired pay through a bank, monthly or quarterly in arrear, is furnished, for convenience, with sufficient forms to last for one year; these forms are not drafts, and they do not become negotiable until the last day of the period to which they relate. It is clearly stated on the forms that the
allowance cannot legally be assigned as a security for the loan of money, and the possession of the forms by an unauthorised person is punishable under Section 156 of the Army Act. Soldiers are not paid through banks, and no supply of forms in advance is required.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

TUBERCLE-FREE DAIRY HERDS.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: 39.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many tubercle-free dairy herds there are in Scotland, and where they are situated?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): No general statistics upon this subject are available. In connection with the sale of higher-grade milk the Scottish Board of Health have received intimation of the existence of 31 dairy herds in Scotland certified to be free from tuberculosis. These figures should not be taken as representing the total numbers of such herds, but only as comprising such cases as are, intimated to the Board of Health for the purpose stated.

Dr. SHIELS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman see his way to get these figures, as they are of considerable importance

Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the Rouse whether the 30 herds he mentions are situated mainly in the West or the East of Scotland?

Sir J. GILMOUR: A considerable number of these are situate in the West:

FISHING GEAR (CREDITS).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 40.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the January Report of the Scottish Fishery Board on the failure of the winter fishing; and whether he will reconsider his decision in respect to the credits for the replacement of lost and damaged gear, extend these credits after the 31st March next, and modify the conditions, especially in respect of the demand for cash payments, so as to make them more helpful to those fishermen who need them most?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The decision that the period for receiving applications for loans should close on the 31st March was reached after full consideration of all the circumstances, and I am not prepared to reconsider it.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to modify the condition under which loans must be applied for before 31st March, and is he not aware that many of his supporters at and before the last General Election told the fishermen in Scotland that special support would be given to their claims?

Sir J GILMOUR: I do not see how I can reconsider the terms.

LIME KILNS, LOCH ERIBOL.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 41.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, seeing that large lime kilns are lying derelict on the Government's property at Loch Eribol, that such lime kilns could be worked without loss to the State to the immense benefit of the farmers and smallholders in Caithness, Sutherland, and Orkney, that they would be useful in connection with the reclamation of land for the purpose of constituting small holdings on Government property in the immediate vicinity of Loch Eribol, and would provide much needed employment in the locality, he will state the estimated cost of putting these kilns into operation and the Government's intentions in the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The lime kilns referred to by the hon. and gallant Member have been out of use for many years and are now in a ruinous condition. The capital cost of restarting them would, I am informed, be about £3,000 I am not satisfied that this expenditure, together with the running costs of working, would be justified by the return that could he obtained from the product of the kilns.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Surely this could be brought in under the Trade Facilities Act, which must be adequate for the purpose?

HERRINGS (AVERAGE PRICE AT OBAN PIER).

Mr. HARDIE: 59.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he will give for the year 1924 the average price of herrings per cran at Oban Pier; the railway cost of carrying to Glasgow; and the average retail price of the herrings in Glasgow?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The average price of herrings at Oban Pier in 1924 was 55s. 9d. per cran, the range of prices being from 15s. to 128s. per cran. The railway charges from Oban to Glasgow were as follows:
Under 5 cwts., 2s. 10W. per cwt.
5 cwts. and under 3 tons, 2s. per cwt.
3 tons or over, 36s. 3d. per ton.
I regret that it is not possible to furnish particulars of the retail prices at which herrings from Oban as distinct from herrings from other sources were sold in Glasgow.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman gone into these figures to discover that the herrings are landed in Glasgow market under a 1d. per lb., and will he try to get reasons why the public are fleeced to the extent of 6d. and 8d. a lb. when they go to buy them?

AGRICULTURE FUND.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 60.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how much of the £200,000, Agriculture (Scotland) Fund, was applied during each of the three years 1922–24 for the purpose of the constitution of new landholders' holdings; how much for the enlargement of landholders' holdings; and how much for the improvement and rebuilding of dwelling-houses and other buildings of landholders and cottars?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the answer contains a large number of figures, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

As accounts for the services in question are not completed up to the end of the calendar year 1024. I propose to give figures for the three financial years ended the 31st March, 1924. It is not possible to separate the cost of constituting new small holdings from that of enlarging existing holdings as most land schemes comprise both these purposes. The net expenditure from the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund, as augmented by loans from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, on new holdings and enlargements was in 1921–2 £385,661, in 1922–3 £192,048, and in 1923–4 £204,963. The corresponding net expenditure on the improvement and rebuilding of dwelling-houses and other buildings of landholders and cottars was in 1921–2 £25,528, in 1922–3 £31,871, and in 1923–4 £28,224.

VETERINARY COLLEGES.

Mr. STEPHEN: 62.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he will inform this House of the amount of money that has been granted or has been promised each year to the Dick Veterinary College, Edinburgh, and the Glasgow Veterinary College, respectively, from 1916 down to the present date; will he state what rental, if any, is being paid by the Animals' Disease Research Association for the premises to be occupied by them within the Dick Veterinary College; and what sum of money has been allocated by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland towards the furnishing of these unfurnished premises?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the question involves a tabular statement of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Pollowiny is the reply:

The following table shows the sums paid by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland towards the maintenance of the two Veterinary Colleges in Scotland for each year from 1915–16 to 1923–24 and the sums estimated to be paid for the year 1924–25.

—
Glasgow Veterinary College.
Royal (Dick) Veterinary College.



£
£


1915–16
550
600


1916–17
400
400


1917–18
400
400


1918–19
400
400


1919–20
400
400


1920–21
700
400


1921–22
625
325


1922–23
900
3,000


1923–24
1,000
3,225


1924–25 (Estimated)
1,037
3,589

In addition, a sum of £1,326 was paid to the Glasgow Veterinary College in 1920, and a further sum of £271 in 1923, to meet the accumulated deficit on maintenance account. In 1921 a loan of £2,500 free of interest was made to the Royal (Dick) Veterinary College and a sum of £3,440 was paid to that college in 1923 to liquidate bank overdraft on maintenance account. No arrangements have yet been made as to the rents to be paid by the Animal Diseases Research Association in respect of the premises to be occupied by
them at the Royal (Dick) Veterinary College. The cost of furnishings for these premises is estimated at £400. In addition, a grant of £1,450 has been promised to the Association for the provision of apparatus, glassware, chemicals, etc., at the college.

RENT COMMITTEE.

Mr. STEPHEN: 61.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if, in view of the importance of Members of the House of Commons being fully informed regarding the evidence submitted to the Committee inquiring into the rent problems in the West of Scotland, he will arrange for a full report of such evidence being supplied to every Member who desires it when the Commission has completed its inquiries?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is a matter which, in accordance with the usual practice, will be considered when I receive the Report of the Committee. I shall keep the hon. Member's representation in view.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 64.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many nights the craft stationed at Plockton for detection of illegal trawling has been under weigh from dark to daylight during this winter: if he has received a Report that on 18th February, while this craft was anchored in Kishorn Bay, a trawler was operating in Applecross Sound and did irreparable damage to the nets of local boats: and, if not, will he call for a Report and take immediate action?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not consider that it is in the public interest to publish details of the movements of the fishery cruisers or their auxiliaries, hut I shall he pleased to communicate the desired information to the right hon. Member personally. Complaints have been made that on the night of 18th February, part of the nets which had been shot during the day by two fishing boats were taken away or destroyed. The damage is attributed by the fishermen to a trawler which they had seen during the day. None of the fishermen could give any particulars to assist in identifying this vessel, and a telegram sent on the evening of the 18th to the auxiliary cruiser was not received until next day. I greatly regret the
damage suffered by the fishermen, but in the absence of any identification of the alleged offender no proceedings or remedial action can be taken.

LOCHBOISDALE PIER.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 65.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has any intention of taking any steps to have Lochboisdale Pier reopened; and, if so, what steps?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I cannot add anything to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on the 17th and the 24th of last month.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to rouse himself in this matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sure if the hon. Member had his way I should be distinctly roused.

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (WAGES AND HOURS).

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: 66.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the average number of hours per week and the minimum wage and the minimum wage per hour of adult agricultural labourers in Scotland; and how these rates compete with similar figures for the northern counties of England?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the answer is long, and contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter which is attracting much interest, not only in the South-West of Scotland, hut even as far as Bridgeton?

Following is the answer:

The average number of working hours per week for adult agricultural labourers in Scotland is 51: there is no minimum wage fixed for such labourers in Scotland; the estimated average wage for married ploughmen is 40s. per week, including allowances of an average value of 10s., that for single ploughmen is 33s. per week, including board or allowances valued at 12s. It is calculated that the average rate per hour for married ploughmen is 9½d., and that for single ploughmen 8d.

I am informed that in Northumberland the proposed minimum rates for adult stewards, horsemen, cattlemen, stockmen or shepherds are 41s. per week of 62 hours or about 8d. per hour, and for other adult male workers (except casual workers) 34s. per week of 48 hours in winter and 52½ hours in summer, or about 8d. per hour on the average; and that in Cumberland and Westmoreland the minimum rates for adult male workers hired on yearly or half-yearly engagements are 37s. per week of 62 hours or slightly over 7d. per hour, and for other adult male workers (except casual workers) 30s. per week of 48 hours in winter and 54 in summer, or 7d. per hour on the average.

SHEFF-DIPPING REGULATIONS.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 42.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if any decision has been reached on the question of the sheep-dipping Regulations enforced by certain English local authorities, which require the double-dipping of all sheep passing from Scotland to England; and whether, as the Regulations apply to districts in Scotland not affected by disease, he will take steps to secure a modification of what are regarded as unnecessary restrictions, which have a prejudicial effect on the interests concerned?

Captain HACKING: I have been asked to reply for the Minister of Agriculture. The whole question of the Regulations with regard to sheep-dipping is at present under consideration. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position shortly to announce certain new proposals which will, he thinks, go far to meet the difficulties arising from the present situation.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman state whether the same Regulations operate in Scotland as operate in this country with the men who handle the sheep-dipping?

Captain HACKING: Yes, they do.

Mr. SEXTON: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman considered the advisability of applying this process to all shades of political thought that crosses the border?

AUSTRALIAN ZINC CONCENTRATES.

Mr. THURTLE: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the
loss sustained by the State as a result of trading transactions in connection with Australian zinc?

Sir P. GUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. The latest completed accounts for Australian zinc concentrates are those for the financial year 1923–24. The net loss as from April, 1918, to 31st March, 1924, was £1,328,000.

ALL-IN INSURANCE.

Commander C. WILLIAMS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he has any further statement to make to the House as to the progress the Government are making with an all-in insurance scheme?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.

ELECTRICAL GENERATING PLANT, GRETNA.

Mr. HARDIE: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government are retaining the electrical generating plant, at Gretna, which is the only lighting service in the district, or if they contemplate placing the plant under the control of the local authority for the area?

Mr. GUINNESS: The electrical generating plant at Gretna, which was intended for manufacturing purposes, is quite unsuitable for the present limited requirements. I understand, however, that negotiations are being conducted with persons locally interested, on the basis that they shall obtain a small generating plant and acquire from the Government such distributing cables, etc., as would be necessary for the supply of electric current to houses.

Mr. HARDIE: Have not the Government considered the position of the inhabitants of that war time town called Gretna; are they not aware that by placing this in the hands of a local body of individuals they are placing the inhabitants at the mercy of what may become a company, and are they not aware that the present plant is not only equal to lighting Gretna town, but also the roads?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have no evidence that the local authority have applied. If the 'hon. Member will give me any details, shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. HARDIE: I shall be glad to supply them.

CROWN SERVANTS (PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATURE).

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the length of time which has elapsed since the constitution of the Blanesburgh Committee; whether this body has reported; if so, to what effect; and, if not, whether he can expedite the compilation of such Report?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply which I gave on the 11th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha), of which I am sending him a copy. I understand that the Committee now hopes to present its Report at an early date, and in the circumstances I do not think any action on the part of the Government is called for.

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AND BOUNTIES.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if lie will give a list of the subsidies and bounties paid by His Majesty's Government during the year ended 5th April last to industries in the United Kingdom?

Mr. CHURCHILL: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain BENN: Are those bounties the class of bounties that would justify other countries in imposing a countervailing duty?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Are they similar to the bounties in respect of the Scottish fishermen?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I had better read them out. The only payments of which I am aware of, that would fall under the description of subsidies and bounties to industries in the United Kingdom, are
as follow, the figures relating to the financial year ended 31st March, 1924:

£


Scottish Office, Hebridean Steamer Services
14,000


War Office, Light Horse Breeding Scheme
31,862


War Office, Mechanical Transport
320


Admiralty, Cunard Subsidy
90,000


Air Ministry, Civil Aviation
125,258


Sugar Beet, guarantee for Home Grown Sugar, Limited
12,500


Corn Production, payments under Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921; small romanet expenditure
351

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: is the right. hon. Gentleman not aware that the Hebridean mail service subsidy is much too low?

STAMP DUTIES.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the receipts to date this year in respect of Stamp Duty on the transfer of dwelling-houses?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The net receipt of Stamp Duty on conveyances of land and houses in the 11 months ended 28th February, 1925, is, approximately, £2,800,000. No division of this total can be made as between dwelling-houses and other classes of property.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 53.
also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the receipts to date this year in respect of the Stamp Duty on cheques?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Let receipt of Stamp Duty from cheques in the 11 months ended 28th February, 1925, is approximately T3,250,000.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of reducing this duty, in order to economise in currency?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot be expected to answer that in advance of the introduction of the Budget.

CIGAR DUTY.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the existing duty
on imported cigars, which is assessed by weight, has affected adversely and unfairly the industry in India by penalising the lower-priced Indian cigars in comparison with the higher-priced cigars of foreign origin; and whether he will consider the advisability of reducing this to anad valorembasis, in order that Empire-grown produce may have an equal opportunity of securing a British market?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware that the existing duty has affected the consumption of Indian cigars in this country more than the consumption of foreign cigars. I have noted the suggestion contained in the latter part of the question.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter that is agitating the agricultural workers in the South of Scotland very much?

PROFIT-SHARING.

Mr. ALBERY: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the possibility of encouraging profit-sharing in the industries of this country by conceding some advantage in taxation to companies and firms dividing a certain percentage of their profit amongst their workers in addition to the standard wage?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not by any means indifferent to the advantages of profit-sharing, but I fear I could not approve any proposal to encourage it in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend.

TRADE FACILITIES ACTS.

Mr. ALBERY: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of imposing a tax of 1 per cent. annually on the capital amount of all loans in future raised with the British Government guarantee under the Trades Facilities Act, seeing that this, besides being of benefit to the Exchequer; would overcome many of the objections inherent in the present emergency measure?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not prepared to adopt this suggestion, which would clearly deprive most borrowers of any inducement to come forward with schemes under the Trade Facilities Acts.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a contract secured by the Royal Mint for 140,000,000 copper coins for Lithuania has been sub-let to the King's Norton Metal Company, of Birmingham; and, if so, what were the reasons for sub-letting, in view of the fact that 37 men have recently been discharged from the Royal Mint owing to lack of work?

Mr. GUINNESS: The order in question, which is for 42,000,000 coins, was obtained independently by the King's Norton Metal Company. The Royal Mint, however, assisted by undertaking to manufacture the necessary punches and inspect the finished coins on behalf of the Lithuanian Government.

COAL-MINING (SILICOSIS).

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: 69.
asked the Secretary for Mines for how long the question of silicosis among coal mines has been under investigation by the Health Advisory Committee; and when they are likely to reach a decision as to its scheduling under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): The alleged prevalence of silicosis among coal-miners has been under consideration by the Health Advisory Committee for about two years. The evidence so far laid before the Committee is quite insufficient to justify any recommendation in respect of compensation, and the Committee would welcome further data.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

KENSINGTON ROAD (SUBWAY).

Mr. PONSONBY: 78.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that for a month past the main arterial Kensington Road has been partially closed to traffic owing to a private firm constructing a subway beneath the road, thereby causing loss and inconvenience to the general public; whether a time limit has been put for this construction; and whether the work can be proceeded with continuously by day and night?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The subway is being constructed, under arrangements made with the London County Council and the Kensington Borough Council, and when completed will relieve Kensington High Street of a certain amount of cross traffic. The work was commenced on 21st January last, is subject to a time limit of 20 weeks, and is being carried out in sections so as to leave half the carriage-way always open, thus enabling one line of traffic to pass in either direction. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. PONSONBY: In view of the great financial value of these way leaves to this firm, are they paying any compensation for interfering with public rights?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would not admit that they are interfering with public rights, but I will endeavour to ascertain as to whether they are paying any way-leaves.

OMNIBUS LICENCES.

Mr. WADDINGTON: 81.
asked the Minister of Transport how many applications for omnibus licences have been refused by local authorities since 1st January, 1921, and of this number how many have since been issued in consequence of representations made by him to the local authorities; and what number of licences have been issued by him against the decision of the local authorities.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not in possession of information in the precise form in which it is sought by my hon. Friend. The number of appeals under Section 14 (3) of the Roads Act, 1920, made to the Minister and disposed of by him since 1st January, 1921, is 262. 104 of the appeals were disallowed. In 155 of the cases, settlement by agreement was reached in consequence of representations made either at the inquiry or by the Minister, but my Department is not necessarily informed by the parties of the terms of settlement. The Minister has no power to issue licences; but in three cases only, Orders have been made by him requiring licensing authorities to do so.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is n proper exercise of his powers to override the decision of the local authorities,
who have the best knowledge of the circumstances?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly I do. This duty—this unpleasant duty—is specifically put upon me by Act of Parliament, but I would point out that there were 262 appeals, and only in three cases did I override them.

Mr. B. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these appeals are generally made to him over the heads of watch committees who are running passenger undertakings, and that such appeals, when they come to him, are, in fact, granted on such terms as to labour conditions and wages as to ruin the municipal property?

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement of facts. I have a duty cast upon me. I hold a local inquiry, in which all parties can be heard. and, as I say, out of 262 cases, in only three cases has the Minister overruled the local authority.

Mr. SMITH: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman insist that some fair-wage conditions should be applied wherever a licence is granted?

Colonel ASHLEY: This has nothing whatever to do with fair wages.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Is it not the fact that in the communication which the Minister of Transport sends to the local authorities, when he draws attention to the refusal to licence, he informs them, that unless they are prepared to grant a licence, he will issue a licence, and that in fact, compels the authorities to grant the licence?

Colonel ASHLEY: I always endeavour to bring all parties together, and in 155 cases out of the 262 coming to me the two parties have come together and made an amicable arrangement.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is it not a fact that the Minister has told the Bradford Corporation that they must issue a licence?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think that is so. The duty is put upon me by Act of Parliament, and in my judicial capacity, having heard the whole evidence, I give a decision.

Captain BOWYER: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the recent decision of his at Northampton came within the three cases or within the 150 cases?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think I must have notice of that. I cannot carry the 262 cases in my head.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 83.
asked the Minister of Transport why he has made the licences for approved routes not available to omnibus purchasers even on the death or incapacity of their first holders?

Colonel ASHLEY: In speaking of "approved routes," I assume that the hon. and gallant Member wishes to refer to the streets declared to be restricted streets under the Order of 17th February. In the event of the death of any licencee, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is empowered to transfer the licence to the personal representatives, or to the widow or child, of the deceased person, subject to the transferee complying with the usual conditions attached to the grant of a licence, and this is, in fact, usually done. I would point out, however, that Section 13 of the London Traffic Act specifically declares that nothing in the Act is to be treated as conferring on any omnibus proprietor any right to the continuance of any benefit arising from the grant of a licence.

LONDON TRAFFIC (RESTRICTED STREETS) ORDER.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 84.
asked the Minister of Transport on what ground the London Traffic Restricted Streets Regulation, made on the 13th February, was ante-dated to the 1st January, which date was prior even to his formal public notice that he intended to make an Order; and whether he is aware that a large number of private omnibus owners are involved in loss by reason of commitments for the purchase of omnibuses, etc., before the Order was made?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 85.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the proposed ante-dating of the Order regarding restricted use of the London streets by omnibuses to the 1st January, 1925, is likely to cause great distress to the small omnibus proprietors, in consequence of many of them having
entered into contracts for the construction of new vehicles before the Order was issued, and, seeing that under Section 3 of the London Traffic (Restricted Streets) Order it was agreed that a public inquiry should be held, will he say whether the same has taken place; if not, whether he will reconsider his decision, pending the holding of such public inquiry, in order that those engaged in the industry may have an opportunity of bringing all the facts before him; and whether, under the circumstances, he will withdraw the notice with regard to the retrospective legislation, so that an opportunity may be given to those who have already ordered omnibuses, in order that no undue hardship or unemployment shall be caused thereby?

Colonel ASHLEY: Before making the Order and Regulations in question, I carefully considered the recommendations made in the matter by the London Traffic Advisory Committee. In the public notice of my intention to make an Order, issued on lath January, it was expressly stated that it was proposed to limit the number of omnibuses plying on the restricted streets to those which might have been so plying under the Schedules in force on let January, 1925. Though 14 clear days were given for the receipt of objections, only three objections to the fixing of this date were received, relating to six omnibuses in all. I have already stated in answer to previous questions that the Advisory Committee propose to investigate all the cases in which hardship is now alleged to 'have been caused to omnibus proprietors by the Order and Regulations, and to report to me thereon. Pending the receipt of this report, I am not. prepared to take any action in the matter.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does not the Minister consider that he has a duty to protect the interests of the private person.

Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly, and I am endeavouring so far as is in my power to be perfectly impartial.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask if my right hon. and gallant Friend is not aware that in some cases these small omnibus proprietors have ordered their omnibuses four or five months before the operation of the Act, and will he consider whether in those cases in which some of the omnibuses have been built only this year,
that they can be licensed this year; and taking all these circumstances into consideration, will he see that these omnibus people may have the opportunity of earning something by running their omnibuses along the routes they have already run along?

Colonel ASHLEY: I quite appreciate that point of my hon. and gallant Friend, but may I tell him this, that the London Advisory Committee sat yesterday from three o'clock until half-past nine in the evening to consider these cases; and it is sitting every day this week for important matters of the kind.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that these cases have sympathetic consideration?

Captain FRASER: Will the Minister especially consider the case of unemployment in connection with this matter, and so take that wider view of the question?

Colonel ASHLEY: All relevant considerations will be taken into account.

PENSIONS CENTRAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. W. C. ROBINSON: 90.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many meetings of the Central Advisory Committee were held in each of the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924: what recommendations were made in each of the respective years; and whether any were adopted by the Ministry of Pensions?

Captain Viscount CURZON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Meetings of the Central Advisory Committee have been held as follows: The Committee having only been constituted by the War Pensions Act of 1921, the first meeting was held in December of that year; two meetings were held in 1922, three in 1923, none in 1924, and one in 1925. The procedure of the Advisory Committee is, appropriately to its constitution, one of free discussion rather than of formal resolution, and does not therefore lend itself to a detailed summary of the various matters on which recommendations have been made and accepted by the Minister. But I understand that it has been the policy to lay before the Committee for their consideration and advice all pro-
posals of importance or difficulty (such as the draft Regulations for final awards in 1921, those for the review of dependants' pensions and War Pension Committee Regulations in 1922, the proposals for the amendment of Article 17 relating to widows in 1923, and, at the latest meeting, the working of final awards and of treatment allowances). My right hon. Friend informs me that the Ministry has been enabled from time to time to effect many improvements in regulation or administration in accordance with the advice tendered by the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Captain BOWYER: 99.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will take all possible steps to see that as many ex-service me and disabled ex-service men as possible are employed at the British Empire Exhibition?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed by the British Empire Exhibition authorities that it has been, and is, their policy to employ only ex-service men and men from the police force and the Royal Irish Constabulary, save in exceptional circumstances where technical experts are required. I may add for the information of my hon. and gallant Friend that the whole of the ground staff are ex-service men, ex-policemen, or men of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Sir F. HALL: Seeing the amount that has been provided by the Government, will the Department of the hon. Gentleman see that the suggestion in the latter part of the question is carried out?

Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: Does the reference of the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the ex-policemen mean that policemen who have been retired from service and are enjoying pensions are being employed in that capacity?

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot tell off-hand, but I should think so.

Mr. HAYES: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the fact of a policeman re-
ceiving a pension is not utilised in so far as to detract from the standard rate of wages to be paid?

Mr. SAMUEL: I will have the wishes of the hon. Member brought to the notice of the proper authority.

WAITRESSES.

Colonel DAY: 101.
asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the public dissatisfaction that was caused last year with regard to the conditions of pay and employment of the waitresses engaged at Wembley, if he is taking steps to prevent a repetition of these conditions; and if he will consider setting up a Trade Board for the catering trade

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): With regard to the first part of the question, I understand that my hon. Friend the Secretary, Overseas Trade Department, has been in communication with the British Empire Exhibition authorities on the question of conditions of employment at Wembley. I would, however, suggest that, in the first place, the matter is one for discussion between the representatives of employers and workers concerned. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply, of which I am sending him a copy, given on 4th March to questions on this subject by the Noble Lord the Member for Derbyshire West (Marquess of Hartington) and others.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Are we to understand from that answer that arrangements will be made for the employés and the British Empire Exhibition authorities to get into consultation: that was not the case last year?

Mr. BETTERTON: Any further questions with regard to Wembley should, I think, be addressed to my hon. Friend the Secretary for the Overseas Department.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But in view of the heavy guarantee this House has voted since the question was last raised are not the Government taking some power to see that good conditions for these people prevail?

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the respected or respect
able firms in the City of London are paying their waitresses 13s. per week, and will he take steps to see that there is a rate fixed which is decent?

Mr. BETTERTON: All these supplementary questions, I would again suggest, could be more profitably addressed to the Department of Overseas Trade.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have we no power in view of this heavy guarantee? Has the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Department or this House no power to see that proper conditions prevail?

Mr. SPEAKER: These questions had better be put down.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 102.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the case of Miss Elsie Price, of Penygarth, Llanbedr, County of Merioneth, a draper's assistant, aged 28 years, with 12½ years' experience, who has been deprived of unemployment benefit for declining to accept work as a domestic servant; and whether, seeing that it is not fair to offer domestic service to a person who has no experience of the work, and to withhold unemployment benefits when evidence is produced that every-effort is being made to secure employment in the trade in which the appellant is skilled, he will inquire into this case?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am informed that the facts are generally as stated in the question. Miss Price, in accordance with the statutory machinery, appealed to the court of referees and the court, after hearing her statement, upheld the disallowance of her claim. The case is, however, being submitted to the umpire by the insurance officer for final and authoritative decision. The matter is therefore still sub judice, and I will send the hon. Member a copy of the umpire's decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

MAILS (PAYMENT TO RAILWAY COMPANIES).

Colonel DAY: 87.
asked the Postmaster-General the gross amount of money paid to the railway companies for the carrying of mails for the year ending 31st December, 1913, and the year ending 31st
December, 1924; and the approximate number of letters so carried in each year?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The payments to railway companies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for services in connection with the conveyance of letter mails by rail during the years 1913 and 1024 were £1,288,000 and £1,927,000, respectively. The corresponding figures for parcel mails were £1,117,000 and £1,898,000. I regret that there is no information available as to the number of letters contained in mails conveyed by rail.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the House will have the opportunity of discussing on the Estimates the amount of money paid to these railway companies?

FACILITIES (MOULSECOOMB).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 88.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has been approached with regard to the establishment of a post office at Moulsecoomb; whether a post office is in prospect there; and what are the obstacles, if any, to the provision of a post office at that place?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In view of the development of the, new housing estate at Moulsecoomb, inquiries were made by the Postmaster of Brighton several months ago with a view to opening a sub-post office, hut, up to the present, no candidate with suitable qualifications and premises has been forthcoming to act as sub-postmaster. I should welcome the assistance of the residents in the matter.

BROADCAST RECEIVING LICENCES.

Captain FRASER: 89.
asked the Postmaster-General what revenue has been received by his Department as its share of broadcast receiving licence dues for the last available year; and what have been the expenses of his Department for the same period of printing and issuing these licences?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The figures for the last available year are shown on page 27 of the Post Office Commercial Accounts for the year ended the 31st March, 1924, published as H.C. Paper No. 5 of 1925.

Captain FRASER: Will my right hon. Friend say if it is not a fact that his Department has made a considerable profit from its share of these licence fees, and, if that is so, will he consider whether he can reduce the licence fees from his part of the payment without affecting the revenue of the British Broadcasting Company?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is rather a wider question that I am afraid I am not prepared to go into.

SPRINGBURN POST OFFICE.

Mr. HARDIE: 90.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the premises situated between Springburn Road and Elmvale Street as premises for the new post office for Springburn?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: An offer of property at the junction of Springburn Road and Elmvale Street has been received, but as the premises in question are three furlongs from the present office they are not suitably situated for the proposed new office.

PENNY POST.

Colonel DAY: 91.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to introduce a penny post for letters not exceeding one ounce in weight at an early date?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the Budget statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

ENEMY DEBTS CLEARING OFFICE.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the reason why the clearing office for enemy debts, notwithstanding the fact that adequate funds are already in the hands of the office, continues to hold up the balance of 5s. in the £, being payment due to accepted claimants for compensation under Article 297 of the Treaty of Versailles?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A further dividend of 5s. in the £, making with the amount already paid, a total dividend of 20s. in the £ on the awards of the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal in respect of claims for compensation under Article 297 (e), will be paid at the end of next month.

RESEARCH EXPEDITIONS COMPANY (SAILORS' WIVES 'ALLOTMENTS).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that early in 1924 the Research Expeditions Company, of 50, Pall Mall, London, chartered the steam yacht "St. George," lying at Dartmouth, Devon, for a cruise in research work in Australian waters; that a crew of ex-naval men were signed on by the Board of Trade at Dartmouth, and the company guaranteed the crew 12 months' wages to be paid to their wives by allotments; that these allotments were paid regularly up to the end of last year, but since then no allotments have been paid; that the aggrieved women wrote to the head office of the company and received a reply informing them that the company had no money, owing to the fact that the subscriptions and donations to the company bad not fulfilled their expectations; that these families are now without means; that their respective husbands are in Australian waters and are about to make an extended voyage instead of returning to England; and that the families of these men have had to apply for assistance to the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust; and whether, in these circumstances, he will utilise what power he has to assist these women?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed by the owners of the vessel to which the hon. Member refers that all arrears of allotments of the wages of the crew have now been paid, and that provision has been made for all further payments.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this does not happen in future, when women are cast away on charity owing to the non-fulfilment of obligations?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the hon. and gallant Member knows, this is an exceptional case, connected with an expedition for research. I do not think it is likely to be often repeated.

RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Mr. MAXTON: 25.
(forMr. N. MACLEAN) asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of claims
lodged with the Russian Claims Department of the Board of Trade against the Soviet Government for loss of occupation arising from the change of Government in Russia and the total sum originally claimed; whether the legitimacy of any of these claims has been investigated by the Claims Department; whether any claims have been disallowed or reduced in amount; and, if so, what is the total sum now claimed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of claims made specifically for salaries, wages and commission is 147; I am unable to state the total sum claimed, as in a number of instances no precise figure is given by the claimants. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the third and fourth parts consequently do not arise.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. W. C. ROBINSON: 98.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any assistance is now given to ex-service men who desire to migrate to the Dominions overseas; and, if so, will he furnish particulars of the scheme or schemes?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): There are no special schemes for assisting ex-service men desiring to settle in the overseas Dominions, but they are eligible for assistance under the various schemes of assisted migration arranged under the term of the Empire Settlement Act., 1922. With the hon. Member's permission, I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the schemes now in operation.

Following is the statement:

STATEMENT OF SCHEMES UNDER THE EMPIRE SETTLEMENT ACT.

A.—Assistant Passage Schemes.

In exceptional cases loans may be granted to enable the settlers to meet the above-mentioned cash payments.

B.—Land Settlement Schemes.

(NOTE—The above schemes may be revised if the new settlement proposals, now under consideration between His Majesty's Government and the Commonwealth Government, are accepted.)

In addition to the above schemes, there are a number of minor schemes with voluntary organisations for assisting with the passages of persons not eligible under Government schemes and for granting additional assistance.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

HOUSING PROBLEM.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: On behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, he will call attention to certain matters relating to the Housing Problem, and move a Resolution.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. NAYLOR: I beg to give notice that., on this day fortnight, I will draw attention to the question of Widows' Pensions, and move a Resolution.

SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. LUNN: My hon. Friend (Mr. Ammon) has asked me to give notice on his behalf that, on this day fortnight, he will call attention to the question of Secondary Education, and move a Resolution.

PROFIT-SHARING SCHEMES.

Mr. HILTON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will draw attention to Profit-sharing Schemes, and move a Resolution.

HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT (FORTY-EIGHT HOURS).

Mr. FORREST: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the hours of industrial employment.
The object of the Bill is to provide an opportunity for the introduction of the forty-eight hours' week into any or every industry where the innovation is desired. We heard a great deal last week of what is popularly described as "contracting-in" and "contracting-out." This Measure provides machinery for contracting-in. The power of initiative will be very largely in the hands of the Minister of Labour, the Bill merely providing that he must. be satisfied that there is a general demand for a change before he issues an Order. Where there is a thoroughly
representative general industrial council, trade-board or similar organisation, the Minister may delegate his powers and his authority to it so far as relates to the temporary working of overtime. Subject to this provision, overtime is strictly limited to a total working week not exceeding 55½ hours.
There are special provisions regarding accidents and to meet emergencies, and also for special working conditions. The rates for overtime can be fixed for any industry by any joint organisation of the men representing not less than 75 per cent. of those engaged in the industry, but the overtime rates must not be less than time-and-a-quarter. This proposal, although applicable to all industries, I admit is made in the interests of the textile industry, where a complete understanding between employed and employers already exists with very happy results. This is one of the few industries which went through the whole War, and which has gone through the slump since the War, without a single stoppage of work from any cause whatever. The 48 hours' week is all they got out of the war experience, and at present it is in operation by voluntary agreement. For obvious reasons, however, it is most desirable to legalise it, and this Bill does it with due and proper safeguards.
The Minister will have full power to order an inquiry to be made on the application of any organisation representing not less than 50 per cent. of the workers engaged in that industry, and he may sanction a decision on the demand of not less than 75 per cent. of the workers so affected. The employers are reasonably protected by the need of laying on the Table of this House an Order which only becomes operative at the end of 40 days, provided no address has during that period been presented against it. Similar arrangements are made to the modification or discontinuance of this Order. All Regulations are made by the Minister, but an appeal lies to a specially nominated Judge of the High Court.
Finally, there are the usual penalties for the non-observance of the Act. That is all that there is in the Bill. I have endeavoured to limit it strictly to the aim and object of the Measure, and there are no subsidiary Clauses. This is an attempt to meet some of the industrial objections
to a compulsory Act, especially in regard to one or two of the leading trade unions. There ought to be an avoidance of complications, and there should be no hard or fast application of the main principle in special circumstances. The Bill places in the hands of the workers great powers, and if they desire the change or already possess it and desire to legalise a 48 hours' week, it will be the easiest thing in the world for them to do so. Nor will this Measure do any injury, so I hope, to industry, especially at the present time. I have endeavoured to hold the balance fairly, and I trust this will be recognised by moderate opinion in all quarters of the House. It is a nonparty Measure, and it is supported by hon Members on both sides of the House. It is a great gesture, and a practical step forward in the direction of the ideal international 48 hours' week. I hope I shall be given facilities for introducing the Bill, and that the subsequent stages will be sympathetically and favourably considered by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out that I have already given notice through the ballot for Friday Motions that I intend to move on Friday, the 1st of May, a Motion, and introduce a Bill dealing with hours of labour. I want to safeguard my own rights. I understand that if a Bill has already been given notice of it blocks any other Bill on the same subject. I have no desire to block this Bill, and all I want to do is to preserve my own rights.

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly this will not in any way affect the rights of the hon. Member, or the Bill which he has put down. We have often two or more Bills on one subject, and the hon. Member will be quite safe in his right to move that Bill on the day to which he referred.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Forrest, Colonel England, Mr. Hugh Edwards, Lieut.-Colonel Gadie, Mr. Ramsden, and Mr. Trevelyan Thomson.

HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT (FORTY-EIGHT HOURS) BILL,

"to amend the hours of industrial employment," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 2nd April, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

SUSPENSION OF MR. KIRKWOOD.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move,
That the period of suspension from the service of the House of Mr. Kirkwood do terminate this day.
In rising to move this Resolution, I only propose to make one observation. In a House like this, where there are so many Members who are either here for the first time or have been Members of the House for a year, or for a very short period, they may not realise the difficulty we have in the particular case with which we are dealing. It is owing to the fact that 23 years ago a Committee of this House started revising the Standing Orders, and in the second Section of Standing Order No. 18 [Order in the House] they left the Section not completed, and that Section reads:
(2) If any Member be suspended under this Order, his suspension on the first occasion,
and there it ends. The practical result of that is that if at any time in maintaining order in debate the Chairman has to name any hon. Member of this House, automatically, and without any prospect of appeal, a procedure is put into motion which ends in the exclusion of that Member from our deliberations for the rest of the Session, subject only to a Resolution being passed allowing him to resume his duties here.
I have always felt, and I have had to deal with this matter before now, that it is rather an invidious task for the Leader of the House to have to give a decision as to whether the suspension shall last for a week, or a month, or two months, or the rest of the Session. If a suspension of this kind takes place at the beginning of a Session, I have never seen any case where I should not feel that a suspension for a period of four or five months would be too severe a penalty. I have only to suggest to the House that the time has come when I think a Committee of this House should resume the work begun on the 13th February, 1902, and put something definite into that Section which would make it perfectly plain what the penalty is for a given offence, and for a repetition, and should remove from the Leader of the House this very invidious task.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I only rise on account of the observations which
the Prime Minister has made. It really is most invidious that the Prime Minister should be called upon to exercise his discretion as to how long the sentence of suspension should hang over the head of a Member, and if the right hon. Gentleman cares to put his suggestion into operation, and proceed through the usual channels to set up a Committee, I can only say that., as far as I am concerned, I should only be too glad to co-operate with him.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I well remember the circumstances under which we left the Standing Order unfinished in 1902, but I think it is only fair to say that it was not the fault of the Committee. The Committee reported to the House, but the House proceeded so slowly with the revision of the Standing Orders that Mr. Balfour, who was then leading the House, decided that he could spend no more time over the revision of this Standing Order. For our part, we should certainly welcome the setting up of a new committee to deal with it, and I hope that the House would deal more expeditiously with this Standing Order than it did in 1902.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: May I, as a new Member, say that I regret that this Motion is being moved so early. It is no easy thing for a new Member, without the experience which years in this House bring, to exercise possibly the restraint which older Members exercise. But I observe that many older Members exercise rather less restraint than I do, and that sometimes we are unduly provoked by hon. Members. I wish to take this opportunity—and I am entitled to do so—to say that I think it would be for the great advantage of this House if hon. Members would interrupt to a less extent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Including yourself!"] including, possibly, myself. That is no reason why other people should misbehave themselves. I know I am speaking not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of a number of other Members when I say that we resent very much indeed the sustained interruptions which come from time to time from certain benches.

Colonel GRETTON: I am now an old Member of this House, and I have seen many incidents where Members have transgressed the Orders, have fallen
under the disfavour of the Chair, and have been dealt with under the Standing Orders. Such incidents are always regrettable, because they derogate from the dignity and authority of Parliament itself. But it would be still more to be regretted if hon. Members should be allowed, either in moments of excitement or, it may be, on some occasions by deliberate design, to interrupt disorderly the proceedings of this House, and it is with the greatest regret that some of us have seen a greater tendency to disorder during recent times than has occurred in our previous experience. It would be intolerable if the proceedings of this Parliament of 615 Members were to be rendered abortive or disorderly by the efforts of four or five Members, who, in moments of excitement, or for other reasons, may behave in a disorderly manner. May I say, on my own behalf and, I think, on behalf of many private Members, that we hope and trust that the Chairman on all occasions will protect the order of the House. The Chair may rely upon the support of the vast majority of this House in enforcing the Standing Orders whenever it may be necessary. Of course, we all realise that in a new Parliament there are many Members who do not realise what the Standing Orders and the necessary rules of procedure are. But the time has surely passed now when that plea of ignorance may be sustained with effect, and we do hope and trust that this incident will not in any way derogate from or impair the authority of the Chair, but that we shall enforce the Orders of the House without fear or favour towards any Member who may transgress, in whatever part of the House he may sit.

Mr. MAXTON: I think it would have been better if this Debate had been left where it was left by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. But I do not think I would be fair to a colleague, the only Member of this House who is unable to be present here to-day, if I did not reply to the hon. Member for Reading opposite (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). I could excuse the hon. Member for Reading, but I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Burton observed the usual courtesy between Members which requires that
when a Member is going to be attacked in a personal way that Member is informed of the intention. beforehand. [HON. MEMBERS "There was no attack!"]

Colonel GRETTON: May I assure the hon. Member and the House that I was speaking generally, and referred to no single individual.

Mr. MAXTON: It is quite impossible to deal with this as a general question to-day. I want to remind these hon. Members that there is no one associated with me who admits for one. moment that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was disorderly upon the occasion referred to, and some of us believe that to-day we are taking a very great step in self respect in agreeing to the withdrawal from the Order Paper of a certain Motion that was put down. I want to say, further, that the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway has a very slight memory for the history of this House or for the history of his own party if he really believes that this House has been more disorderly during the last two years than at many previous periods before the Clyde was represented at all. I realise that this Debate could very easily take a very acrimonious turn. But there is no one associated with me who wants that to occur. We want our colleague back here in the House to render the very great services which he does render. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not know any other Member who makes such a big personal human contribution to the affairs of this House as the hon. Member who is suspended, and I resent any imputation on his conduct or character made by any hon. Members. I hope that we shall leave this Debate, as if these things had not been said, at the stage at which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition left it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,

"That the period of suspension from the service of the House of Mr. Kirkwood do terminate this day."

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

First Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGULATION AND REPORTS) BILL,

"to regulate the publication of Reports of Judicial Proceedings in such manner as to prevent injury to public morals," presented by Sir EVELYN CECIL; supported by Mr. Fisher, Mr. Clynes, Sir John Simon, Sir Leslie Scott, Mr. J. H. Thomas, Sir Herbert Nield, Mr. Runciman, Lord Apsley, Major Birchall, Miss Wilkinson, and Sir Fredric Wise; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to he printed. [Bill 97.]

SELECTION (UNOPPOSED BILL COMMITTEES (PANEL)).

Mr. FREDERICK HALL reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Panel appointed to serve on Unopposed Bill Committees: Sir Philip Pilditch; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Martin Conway.'

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Valuation (Metropolis) Bill); Mr. Attorney-General, Sir Henry Buckingham, Sir William Bull, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Captain Garro-Jones, Mr.

Guinness, Mr. Lansbury, Colonel Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Webb, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Guardianship of Infants Bill): Viscountess Astor, Mr. Clowes, Mr. Rhys Davies, Captain Elliot, Mr. Harney, Sir Ellis Hume-Williams, Sir William Joynson Hicks, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Sir Herbert Nield, Mrs. Philipson, Mr. Ramsden, Mr. Rawlinson, Sir Henry Slesser, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Miss Wilkinson.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the China Indemnity (Application) Bill): Captain Brass, Captain Eden, Mr. Guinness, Mr. Looker, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Somerville, Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Waddington.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Captain Macmillan.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Public Health (Scotland) Amendment Bill): The Lord Advocate, Lord Balniel, Mr. Bethell, Mr. Campbell, Major Crawfurd, Captain Howard, Sir William Lane Mitchell, Mr. Robert Morrison, Mr. Palin, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. West Russell, Mr. Simms, Major Steel, Captain Wallace, and Mr. Windsor.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1924–25.

CLASS 1.

ROYAL PLACES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant-in-Aid.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before this Supplementary Estimate is put to the vote, I hope that we shall have some explanation as to the expenditure on these Royal Palaces: what Royal Palaces are involved, and what the work has been that has been pushed forward in this way so as to need a Supplementary Estimate?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): I was really waiting in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of putting any questions which they wished to raise. This is a very small Supplementary Estimate for £1,600, and it has reference chiefly to the palaces which are not in Royal occupation, but which are thrown open to the public. The need for this Estimate is occasioned by the decision to put in hand a certain amount of unemployment relief work. The total stun mentioned in the Estimate as going to be spent on unemployment work is £6,515, but, as hon. Members will observe, it is not intended to ask Parliament for anything like that total sum. Owing to two kinds of savings that have been made, that sum has been reduced, in the first instance, to £4,350. The first saving is duo to the fact that certain work for fire protection was not completed this year owing to the building strike which took place earlier in the financial year, and the second saving is due to the fact that provision for other residential accommodation has been found not to be required. This £4,350 has been still
further reduced by a fairly large sum by way of receipts. There has been an unexpectedly large increase in the admission fees at palaces which are open to the public. Therefore, although in the Estimate £6,515 is going to he spent for unemployment relief, it is only necessary to come to this House for the very much smeller sum of £1,600.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) wanted to know what exactly the work was and what were the palaces on which this money is going to be spent. The money is going to be spent on what may be called new work and what may be called maintenance and repairs. The new work amounts to about £1,000, and has been spent at Hampton Court Palace. Not so very long ago three rooms which were attached to a private residence were discovered to have been partly the rooms which had been in the personal occupation of Cardinal Wolsey. They had never been open to the public before. They had never been seen by the public. This was thought to be so interesting that those three rooms have been added to that part of Hampton Court Palace which is open to the public. That necessitated a certain amount of structural alteration, and £1,000 has been spent in that respect. The maintenance and repairs are in connection with four palaces: Hampton Court Palace, St. James's Palace, Kensington Palace, and Holy-rood Palace. Of those four palaces, three of them are open to the public.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Which is not open to the public?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The one not open is St. James's Palace. Holyrood, Kensington, and Hampton Court. Palaces are all open to the public. St. James's Palace contains all the offices of the Lord Chamberlain, and cannot very well be thrown open to the public in the same way. I think I have now explained what these items are, and hon. Members will realise that the Vote is for the relief of unemployment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Having heard the hon. Gentleman's explanation, I must say that I think it is perfectly satisfactory, and I welcome this expenditure—in fact, I welcomed it before I heard the hon. Gentleman's explana-
tion. I want, however, to make a protest. If hon. Members will turn to page 3 of the White Paper, they will see the tremendous list of Supplementary Estimates which have been introduced by this and the previous Government. The last Government were equally sinful in this matter; I think that each of its Ministers, with the exception of the Chancellor of the Duchy, introduced some kind of Supplementary Estimate. It is an extremely bad habit, for, although this expenditure may be perfectly desirable, I cannot understand why it was not foreseen. I admit that the expenditure entailed by the very happy discovery, from the archæological point of view, at Hampton Court Palace, could not have been foreseen, but I think the other portion of the amount, namely, about £5,000, might well have been foreseen. I am not however, making any special attack on the Department concerned, as it may have been impossible, but I am making a protest, as I shall on every Supplementary Estimate, against this habit being continued. It is bad finance, it is bad procedure for the House of Commons, and I think it is the duty of Members to make it clear to Ministers that they cannot do this with impunity and rely on their automatic majority to get the thing through.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I only want to ask the hon. Gentleman one question, with regard to Holyrood Palace. I understand that a charge is made for admission to Holyrood Palace, and, although the question I want to put hardly arises on this Supplementary Estimate, T hope the hon. Gentleman will take steps to consider it. I am not very interested, myself, in visiting these palaces, but there are large numbers of other people who desire to visit them for historical reasons, particularly in connection with societies, and I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if it would be possible or him, in the case of a group or a number of persons connected, say, with a church or any other organisation, to see his way to reduce the cost of admission in that ease?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will certainly consider that suggestion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There is one other point, on which I should like to ask a question. I understand that the sum
asked for in this Supplementary Estimate includes some expenditure on Pembroke Lodge. May I ask who occupies Pembroke Lodge, and, further, whether it is in private hands or whether it is open to the public? I should also like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that this expenditure reduces unemployment or not. If it really reduces unemployment, we should like much more spent in this way, but if, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, it is merely taking money from some people, who are already spending it in employing people, and spending it on employing other people in rather useless directions, I cannot see the advantage of this particular form of expenditure from the point of view of unemployment

Sir JOHN SIMON: I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman, in replying, would make quite plain one other matter. That this is a proper sum for the Committee to vote may well be true, and the hon. Gentleman gave us a very clear account of it, but what is not quite clear to me is why this kind of expenditure should be nut down specifically as unemployment relief work. One has heard of Governments, in their efforts to explain that they are really doing something for the unemployed. being very anxious to justify expenditure by riving that as the cause. I remember, in the last House of Commons, that there was a Government in power which sought to justify expenditure on five cruisers by saying that it was not really because the five cruisers might necessarily be required then and there, but it was for the purpose of relieving unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I thought they said something about it, but it is quite true that, when the arguments were further examined, a new reason had to be given. It is true also that the present Prime Minister, when he was Prime Minister in a previous Government, said explicitly in a famous speech, I think at Plymouth, that as a contribution towards the relief of exceptional unemployment he proposed to accelerate the building of certain cruisers. It has always been the view of those who criticize—

The CHAIRMAN: I think this is somewhat beyond the Supplementary Estimate for expenditure on Royal Palaces.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Was not this the actual point raised by the hon. Gentleman as justification?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was embarking on a new controversy. I would remind him of the maxim

"Exemplum ne transeat argumentunt."

Sir J. SIMON: I accept your correction, but should like to put the point without going into further possible illustration. I should like to understand why, if you are going to undertake new works or to maintain a Royal Palace, it is necessary to describe that as unemployment relief work. I am quite content that it should be undertaken, but it does not appear to me to be a desirable precedent for a Government to set down, as though it were unemployment relief work, expenditure which I do not doubt is justified, and which will employ a certain number of people, but which, I presume, is undertaken because it is proper and can be justified on ordinary principles. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would explain how it comes about that this very substantial addition to a token Vote of £200 is described as unemployment relief. Are we to understand that none of this expenditure would have been incurred if it had not been that there were unemployed persons for whom the country was very glad to find employment by any proper means?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to answer the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), and by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I have just as much dislike for these Supplementary Estimates as anyone else in the House, but I should like to point out that some years ago there was a Cabinet Committee which decided that during this grave crisis of unemployment, if the Departments could usefully anticipate the undertaking of expenditure, they should do so to a limited extent. In the case, for instance, of the three rooms at Hampton Court which were discovered to have been occupied by Cardinal Wolsey, it was, no doubt, a matter of great interest to the public that these rooms should be added
to the public portion of the Palace, but there was no actual urgency about it. In view, however, of the state of unemployment, it was thought that it would be a good thing to anticipate expenditure in that particular. In the same way, as regards maintenance and repairs, some of the roof work, no doubt, could have be n put off for a while, but, again, in view of the state of unemployment, it was thought right to anticipate expenditure in that particular. I may mention to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley that this was undertaken on The advice of the Unemployment Relief Committee. That advice has been given to the Office of Works, and that is why we have anticipated our spending in this respect, and are asking the House for this sum of money.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It does reduce unemployment?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The hon. Gentleman has given us no reply to the questions put to him. These men are employed by the Office of Works, but is this work done by men from the permanent staff, or are unemployed men engaged to carry out the work?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: A great deal of this is unskilled labour, and it is done by people who were unemployed, outside the ordinary staff of the Office of Works. A question was also asked about Pembroke Lodge. So far as I understand, Pembroke Lodge is a building which comes under what is known as the "grace and favour" part of the Office of Works, that is to say the Sovereign allows certain persons who have, clone great service to the State, either themselves or their very near relatives, to occupy certain apartments free of cost, and part of Pembroke Lodge is occupied in that way at the present moment.

Mr. MARCH: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can take into consideration the charges which are made for visiting seine of the rooms at Hampton Court Palace? I know that a very large number of people who visit Hampton Court Palace do not mind paying their penny to go and see the vinery. but when they turn to come out of the vinery and see another room close by with a couple of pictures in it, and they are asked to pay 3d. to go through that room, they
turn back and do not go through it. I think that if a penny were charged for passing through that room beside the vinery, a much larger number of people would visit it than is the case at the present moment. I think, also, that there are extra charges up to the amount of 6d. for going upstairs into other rooms, and I think the Department might well consider those charges and see if they cannot be reduced, with a view to getting a better attendance of visitors.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that some of these buildings were not inhabited, and one of them, in addition to Pembroke Lodge, is the Ranger's Lodge in Hyde Park. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has the particulars with him—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that any money is being spent upon that.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: With regard to the charges for admission to Hampton Court Palace, I think the Committee will agree that is in the highest degree desirable that these delightful works of art and other items of interest to the public should be available to the public at as low a charge as possible. There might have been a case some time ago, when wages and earnings were higher than they are now, for a higher scale of charges, but just now, when wages are very much lower, it seems to me that we ought to make it possible, so far as we can, for members of the general public and of the working class to avail themselves of the opportunity to see these works of art and so on, at a lower rate than is now possible. That is desirable, also, from another point of view, because seeing these places of interest does develop a more acute perception and a more acute appreciation of the place these buildings have in our history, and it seems to me that, if we could make them available to a larger section of the public, the historical lessons in our schools and elsewhere would be much more interesting to the children than they are now.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: With regard to the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones), I will certainly consider that, and also the point made by the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) with regard to Hampton Court Palace in
particular. I think, also, that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in regard to Holyrood Palace is a good one, and we shall take all of these suggestions into consideration and see what can be done.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS II.

STATIONERY AND PRINTING.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £45,000, be granted to 'His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during au year ending on the 31st day of March, L925, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the 'Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I desire to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is in charge of this Vote, why this extra expenditure was not foreseen, and he, of ail people, ought to welcome this inquiry on my part. This is a substantial Supplementary Estimate, and I would again draw the attention of the Committee to this long list of indefensible Supplementaries. I wish to make as strong a protest as I can against this practice, which indicates lack of foresight, and, I am afraid, in some cases, extravagance in administration. I hope we shall have a full explanation of the reason why this additional £45,000 is asked for, although it. does not form a very large proportion of the total Estimate for stationery, paper and binding, which, I believe, amounts to about £1,500,000. It is not, surely, going to be said that so many Commissions of Inquiry were set up by the late Government—which is not the case; I do not think they set up more than the previous Government—and their reports had to be printed and produced and that cost all this extra money. That is an explanation that I find not satisfactory at all. Is it that the cost of material has gone up? I do not see this in the explanation. All it says is that unforeseen requirements and the necessity of overtaking arrears of binding work are greater than was anticipated. What were the requirements which were not foreseen? What sudden demand for Government publications was made? What section of the community
took to devouring blue books and sent in large orders'? I think we ought to be enlightened on this point.
As to the arrears of binding work. surely that could have been foreseen. I take it that once more the old plea of unemployment could have been brought in when the original Estimates were brought up and provision made to overtake these arrears without coming to the House for a Supplementary Estimate now. Why have we no Appropriation-in-Aid? I do not see the sub-head in the Supplementary Estimate. It is obvious that if the Government print a new series of publications—Blue Books, returns, and so on—some are sold to the public or to reference libraries. Therefore there roust be some Appropriation-in-Aid, and it is rather extraordinary that that does not figure in the return. Is any part of the expenditure due to the printing of our Parliamentary Debates? If any part of it is due to the sale of our Parliamentary Debates, I wish to put a question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, because I think our present system is wrong, and if altered would bring in more revenue to the State. I think it is quite wrong to charge so much for the Parliamentary Debates. The reason for the charge is not so much the cost of producing the books, and taking down the Debates in shorthand.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see where the hon. and gallant Gentleman gets any item for the Parliamentary Debates.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think I can show you, Sir, that in this case I am in order. I am trying to show that so much money would not be required for a Supplementary Estimate if more were made by the sale of the Parliamentary Debates.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will observe that there is no Appropriation-in-Aid. If there were an Appropriation-in-Aid for the sale of the Parliamentary Debates it would be in order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must wait until the main Vote comes on.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is no Appropriation-in-Aid. I have drawn the attention of the Minister to that.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): There is no change in the Appropriation-in-Aid, and therefore it does not figure in the Estimate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: was proposing to move to reduce the amount by £1,000 in order to draw attention to the point. I think you will agree, Sir, that I can bring my remarks into full order if I can show that the sales of this Government publication would be much greater and more money would come in if it were made cheaper.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it will not be in order to argue that the Depart-merit might by some particular method make more money in other ways. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must wait for the main Estimate for that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Until I have heard the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I do not propose to move any reduction.

Mr. RILEY: I should like to add my plea for a little more information as to the reason for this additional £45,000 on the three items set forth. I have no special reason for objecting to a liberal expenditure upon books and papers, being associated with the industry, but I am certainly somewhat surprised that there is so much additional money for bookbinding. I want to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that there is a decrease in the cost of materials, and also in the quantity of work done for the House, whether any portion of the £15,000 on page 6, which refers to money for bookbinding, is required for work in the libraries in the House. I ask the question for this reason, and it is a reason that makes it more surprising to find this additional Estimate. I have noticed, in going over the library of the House in the last year or so, that instead of having the books bound in sumptuous and luxurious calf en a good morocco, we are
adopting the method of having them bound in cloth, which must be an enormous saving on past expenditure. It is all the more surprising to find an additional Estimate for £15,000 for bookbinding. There is also the other fact that the cost of materials is steadily doing down. Whatever the case may be with regard to wages in the printing and bookbinding trades, in materials there is a gradual, steady decrease in cost. In view of these facts we are entitled to an explanation why there is this provision for £15,000?

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Had you, Sir, permitted the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.- Commander Kenworthy) to enter upon the topic which he ventured on, many of us might have followed his example, because I am by no means without severe condemnation of the Stationery Office. I have some suspicion of the Supplementary Estimate itself. Why is it that we have three items on which an addition is set down? I am suspicious because the deficit on each of these heads is measured at precisely the same sum. That, to me, appears a very artificial way of submitting accounts. It is utterly impossible that exactly this same figure of £15,000 should occur under each of these heads. This is an instance of the practice which has made me entertain very strong suspicions about the whole conduct of this Office, and this Supplementary Estimate increases those suspicions. The Office is carried on on small business lines, not under the immediate supervision of the Minister, as I have more than once had occasion to point out, but by a man who carries it on on the principle of a small commercial business. He finds himself not quite in a position to make the balance sheet meet. He does not consult the Minister, and give him strong and ample reason for going to him, but throws at us a Supplementary Estimate and says: "I do not know exactly what I want, but I want you to give me a lump sum of £15,000 under each of these three heads." I contend that that is a way of balancing hooks and not of showing us how the business is really carried on and on what principle it is
based. The slovenly way in which this Supplementary Estimate is submitted, and the putting of exactly this large, round sum under each of these items, and not attempting to distinguish, confirms me in the suspicion I have with regard to the management of this Office generally.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I find myself in very warm sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He will, no doubt, have observed that, on the last page of the Supplementary Estimate, there purports to be an explanation in slightly more detail, but I cannot help feeling that the explanation makes his own suspicions only the more justified and natural. See how this £15,000 under the head of "Paper" is said to have come about. We are told that
The expenditure is expected to exceed the original estimates in the following respects, (c) Departmental Forms and Circulars, instruction Books, etc., Books, pamphlets, etc., £5,000.
Two "etcs." in a sentence.
(d) Departmental Stationery, Envelopes, Wrapping and Household Paper, Account Books, etc., £10,000.''
I think that rather reinforces what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think I remember that it was the unjust steward who on a particular occasion offered the advice that the thing to do was to sit down quickly and write 50. Someone has recommended that the thing to do is to sit down quickly and Ns-rite £15,000 three times over.

Mr. GUINNESS: The explanation of this Estimate is that the original figure was cut too fine. There has been very great under-spending in the Department under review for three years running. In 1921–22 there was under-spending of £1,425,000. in 1922–23 there was under-spending of £1,125,000, and in 1923–24, in response no doubt to the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Craik) on the Public Accounts Committee drawing attention to over-estimating, a very drastic cut was made of 1,1,000,000, and even so there was under-spending of £120,000. At that time prices were falling, and the Departments were getting
the benefit of the new economy methods which had been brought into force under the recommendations of the Geddes Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did the right hon. Gentleman say prices were going up at present?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have not sad it yet. I have said that at the time when there was this over-estimating, prices were falling.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We could not quite hear the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. GUINNESS: After that period pries ceased to fall and now, as a matter of fact, they have gone up. They are rather higher than those assumed in the Estimates a year ago. There has been in the ease of paper an exhaustion of stocks in the Government Departments. Efforts to economise caused them to look very carefully into their consumption and their stocks. but that very wholesome process has now come to an inevitable end. There has also been a considerable rise in the price of materials. As to binding, an economy took place owing to the recommendations to the Departments not to go in for unnecessary binding, but it has not been found possible to continue the new system of leaving documents unbound, because it was found they were dropping to pieces, and unfortunately a good deal of this economy has proved to he merely postponement. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) asked whether this Estimate refers to the binding of books in the House of Commons Library. The answer is no. That is borne on another Vote. The cost of books is very largely due to unforeseen demands for hooks for the Air Force. I could give the particulars, if necessary. They are small items, which could not be estimated for in advance. There is also a rise in the cost of foreign publications and an increase in the number. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), who takes such a close and expert interest in this subject, has his suspicion excited by the round figures. I am informed that that is merely due to
a coincidence. It is much better to have an honest expectation from the Stationery Department, rather than a cooked figure, and to pretend to a closer knowledge of the exact requirements than Is possible at this stage, when the year is not finished.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) is shocked at the frequency of these Supplementary Estimates, which he thinks might have been foreseen. You cannot have close Estimates and also the avoidance of Supplementary Estimates. It is to the advantage of the country that there should be close estimating, even if it means additional Votes by the House of Commons in Supplementary Estimates towards the end of the financial year. Let me remind the Committee how serious this matter had become. In 1922–23, the Estimates laid before the House overestimated the requirements by 12 per cent. That meant an enormous sum abstracted from the pockets of the taxpayers unnecessarily, because the whole amount had to be provided in the Budget. That figure, I am glad to say, has been largely reduced, and it is probable that this year over-estimating will prove to be down to about one-third of the 12 per cent. We cannot tell exactly, but we hope it will be about 4 per cent. It is better that we should have these Supplementary Estimates, where there are satisfactory explanations if unforeseen circumstances have arisen, rather than that we should encourage and allow the Departments to inflate their Estimates, so as to avoid coming back to the House and having their affairs further inquired into.

Mr. SPENCER: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could inform me to what greater degree additional items in the regard to stationery and printing are included in this Estimate. There grew up in the Departments during the War period, and it has been carried on since, a system of transferring what has been saved on one item to another item where there has been excessive expenditure. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities knows very well that often on the Public Accounts Committee attention has been called to over-
expenditure, where there has been no Estimate, and the money has come through some saving in another item. Again and again, the Public Accounts Committee has objected to that method of spending money.

Sir H. CRAIK: The practice of virement is not possible except in the case of the fighting Services.

Mr. SPENCER: I have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee with the right hon. Gentleman, and I know that we were constantly calling attention to that method, and more than once we were told that they claimed the right to do that kind of thing.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going rather wide. There is no question of virement here.

Mr. SPENCER: When there are items, A, B, C, D, F, G and H, how am I to know what saving there has been on A, B, and C? Am I to understand that if there has been any saving on "A" in these Estimates, it cannot be transferred to "B," where there has been excessive expenditure?

Mr. GUINNESS: In the case of the Civil Service Estimates virement is allowed, under Treasury sanction, between subheads but not between Votes. It is only in the case of the fighting Services that virement is allowing, with Treasury sanction, between Votes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to know whether the Department are looking ahead to anticipated expenditure in the next few weeks? If we are to believe what we are told, the Stationery Department will be called upon to print copies of the inquiry regarding military preparations in Germany. It goes to the extent of 150 pages, according to the Marquess Curzon. I am told that it will be 128 pages, and other figures are mentioned. In any event, it is a very bulky document. These will have to be published in English and French, and there will be a large demand for it. Has
this matter been foreseen, or shall we have another Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. GUINNESS: My hon. and gallant.
Friend may rest assured that there will not be a Supplementary Estimate of that kind. He may also rest assured that Estimate has been made as to the questions, for instance, which he may ask, and the additional printing that may be required.

Mr. STEPHEN: I put a question to-day to the Secretary for Scotland about an important Rent Commission that is sitting in Scotland. We are very anxious that the evidence of that Commission should be printed. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will not allow himself to be overawed by what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. I hope he will turn a very sympathetic ear to the Secretary for Scotland. It is very important that we should get this publication, because the Press reports of the Commission are withholding many—

The CHAIRMAN: This is a Supplementary Estimate, and now the hon. Member is suggesting that there will have to be a further Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. STEPHEN: I hope that the Secretary to the Treasury in this Estimate is taking into account the point that I am putting. I am anxious to persuade him that this Supplementary Estimate should have in view the publication of the Report of the Commission referred to.

The CHAIRMAN: It is doubtless within the power of the Secretary to the Treasury to postpone payment till after the. 31st March.

Mr. STEPHEN: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give a sympathetic car to the Secretary for Scotland in regard to this matter, and if he does so I shall be satisfied.

Question put, and agreed to.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1924–25.

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £220,000. he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for additional Expenditure on the following Navy Services, namely—

Deficits on Gross Expenditure—

£
£
£


Vote 4.
Civilians employed on Fleet Services
14,900




Vote 8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs. Maintenance, etc.:—






Section I. Personnel
545,100





Section II Matériel
197,300




Vote 9.
aval Armaments
15,700




Vote 10.
Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad
134,100




Vote 11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
319,200




Vote 12.
Admiralty Office
232,000




Vote 14.
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men
106,960




Amount anticipated to be written off as irrecoverable
15,000









1,580,200


Less Surpluses on—

Gross Expenditure.
Appropriations-in-Aid.



Vote 2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
27,300
17,400



Vote 3.
Medical Establishments and Services
9,000
9,000



Vote 5.
Educational Services
4,900
5,000



Vote 6.
Scientific Services
20,500
17,200



Vote 7
Royal Naval Reserves
37,300
1,700



Vote 8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:—






Section I. Personnel
—
82,010




Section II. Matériel
—
85,000




Section III. Contract Work
436,000
5,000



Vote 9.
Naval Armaments
—
449,200



Vote 10.
Works. Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad
—
60,000



Vote 11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
—
78,300



Vote 13.
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers
9,200
6,000



Total Surplus
544,200
+816,000
1,360,200





Net Amount

£220,000"

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): This Supplementary Estimate follows a series of Estimates arising out of the Sutton judgment. The Supplementary Estimate of £220,000 is provided in order to cover the liabilities of the Admiralty arising out of that judgment. With the sanction of the Treasury, the whole of the sum required is being provided and will be found in Vote 12. In the ordinary way, the Admiralty would not have had to come to the House and ask for a further sum of money, but in view of the fact that it was essential to come and ask for this supplementary sum of £220,000, the Admiralty are also asking for authority to use extra savings and in order to meet excess expenditure on other Votes. I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that although these are not our Estimates, a great deal of the excess expenditure could not be foreseen. Out of a sum amounting almost to £800,000, a sum of £680,000 is due to the 4s. bonus which was granted to the dockyard workers and other wages increases, and £85,000 arises out of pensions increases.

5.0 P.M.

We have presented a very full Estimate. From time to time before the War, and more particularly since the War, requests have come for further information on the Estimates. When Mr. Bonar Law was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and under succeeding Chancellors of the Exchequer, efforts have been made by the Treasury in presenting Estimates to give fuller information. The Committee will realise that the Admiralty have done their best in this respect. Very full notes are given dealing with the various Votes, showing where the expenditure comes and where there are increases on the Appropriations-in-Aid.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I agree that this is a very full and informative Estimate, in which we are told where savings have occurred and extra expenditure has come about. I would not think of taking advantage of this full Estimate in order to raise the whole subjects of naval debate, but there are two points which are appropriate on this Vote. The first is with regard to Vote 5, "Educational Services." I am extremely sorry to say that the
Appropriation-in-Aid under this sub-Head shows an increase. I do not know what the explanation is. I do not know whether it means that fewer King's cadetships have been given to the sons of officers who fell in the War, or to the widows of naval officers in reduced circumstances. But, at any rate, there it is. The Appropriation-in-Aid is up by some thousands of pounds. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that I hold very strong views on this whole question of the scale of fees for these cadets. Briefly, the position is that only well-to-do people at present can afford to put their sons into the Navy. In the old days when I entered the Navy, some 20 years ago. naval officers, if they had some small means, could by great economy and saving manage to put their boy into the Navy. Of course, it is impossible now for a naval officer unless he has large private means to do so.

The CHAIRMAN: That is opening a question which is not in order on this Vote. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to ask how the Appropriation-in-Aid has been increased, but it appears to me that he is going on to question the policy of the Appropriation-in-Aid.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not develop that point. The Admiralty met this criticism to a certain extent by a few free places, but they arc confined to the sons of officers who fell in the War, and the sons of officers serving are excluded. I should be out of order in embarking on the larger question of policy. Another item to which I wish to refer is II "Marriage Allowance." The original Estimate was £1,050,000. The revised Estimate shows an increase of £22,000. I do not want to go into the whole question of marriage allowance in the Service. We had the Report of a very important Committee set up by the late Government under the Chairmanship of a very distinguished officer, Admiral Goodenough, and although the First Lord of the Admiralty quite properly declined to publish that Report, and has the right to withhold, it, it is common knowledge that the Committee reported favourably on this question, and recommended that marriage allowance should be given to officers in the Navy as they are already given to their comrades in the Air Force and the Army, and that this distinction
should no longer be made as against the Service to which the Empire owes so much. Another Committee is looking into the Report of Admiral Goodenough's Committee. If it reports favourably, what does the Government propose to do in. the matter?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now proposing a new Supplementary Estimate. He is proposing something which it is not vet in the power of the Admiralty to grant, or, at any rate, which it has not been decided to grant. We cannot go into that on this Estimate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that no legislation is required, but simply an administrative act by the Admiralty.

The CHAIRMAN: This is not an explanation of anything on the Estimate before us. It is a new Estimate which the hon. and gallant Member is proposing, and that would be, I am afraid, out of order on this Estimate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then I am precluded from pursuing this matter any further. I am only glad that I have been able, without going out of order, to draw attention to this matter.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must not assume that he was not out of order but perhaps I did not appreciate the position in time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If inadvertently I was out of order, I am sorry, but I feel strongly on this matter. The main reason for this Vote is the Sutton judgment. It is not necessary to say anything except that, as I am the first speaker on this side of the House on this Vote, we welcome this tardy act of justice, and I am sure that no Supplementary Estimate which has been so far presented is more justified than this Supplementary Estimate by the Admiralty to put right a very grave injustice to a very gallant body of civil servants. I am glad that the Admiralty have taken the Committee into their confidence and have given sufficient information on the Supplementary Estimate which shows that this increase is the result of the one judgment.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I rise to draw attention to one item on Page 5 under Vote 5—"Educational Services." I regret very much that we are not told in con-
nection with this item how many naval cadets are actually being trained at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, and consequently we are not able to estimate what is the average cost per cadet. It would be very helpful if we could know what the average cost is. Perhaps I may be able to get it before I resume my seat. I find on page 24 of the Geddes Report that in the preceding year, when they examined the expenditure in regard to his particular item, the average cost per cadet in the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth, excluding any consideration of the cost of public buildings, came to the colossal sum of £462 per cadet, and die Committee said that in their opinion such a sum was far too high, and members of this Committee will cordially agree with that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That excludes the cost of the whole naval staff. The hon. Member must not compare it with an ordinary school.

Mr. JONES: I am not; I am comparing it, as the Geddes Committee compared it, with the ordinary public school. They considered £462 was most excessive, and they recommended that that amount should be reduced by about £150 per head. I wish to know what is the present average cost per cadet, so as to discover whether, as a consequence of the Report of the Geddes Committee, there has or has not been economy on this matter, and I should be very glad to have an answer to that question.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I also would appreciate an answer to the question which has been put by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), and I would like to know how much the parents pay for a cadet in the naval college. Turning to Page 11, Vote 11, Sub-head O, I notice that the original Estimate, "Percentage to Banks, Loss by Exchange, etc.," was 25,000, and that the revised Estimate is £2,500, which is £2,500 less, and I would be glad to have an explanation of that.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a saving, and so it requires no explanation in Supplementary Estimate.

Sir F. WISE: I realise that it is a saving, but I do not see why the Navy should deal in Exchange.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must wait for the main Estimate.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I welcome this Supplementary Estimate for one of the reasons given by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It is always a pleasure, no matter what Government is in power, to have a Supplementary Estimate presented to increase the wages of people who deserve it. Therefore I congratulate the Government on this Supplementary Estimate. I wish, however, to refer to the question of the construction of ships under private contract. Some of us may disagree as to the policy of building those cruisers, and some of us may differ as to whether they should have gone to private yards or not.

The CHAIRMAN: To what item exactly is the hon. Member referring?

Mr. BUCHANAN: To Vote 8, Section 3, "Contract Work," all the items. Every member of the Committee will, however, agree that, once the contracts have been given, land once the principle has been adopted, whatever unemployed people can be employed should be given employment at the earliest possible moment. I wish to point out that the item in regard to inspection of the work under Sub-head F' shows a decrease of £14,500. What is the reason for this decrease? I do not blame anybody, and I do not. say that the feeling which exists is right, but there is a feeling in the yards that this work is not being proceeded with in time to absorb anything like the number of men who, it was thought, were likely to be absorbed by the work. Will the decrease in this item affect the rapidity with which the work will be carried out, or will it affect in any way the standard of classification as to how the work will be carried out? It is essential that the inspection of work carried out, particularly in private yards, should be thorough. Will the decrease in this Estimate affect in any way the efficiency or extension of the work? There is urgent need for seeing that your inspecting staff is fully equipped, in order, not only that the work might be done, but that the unemployed might be as fully engaged as the capacity of the yard will permit. I remember that two years ago we had a good deal of trouble with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who is now known as the Chief Whip of the Government. That trouble was due to the
fact that the work was not proceeded with as we wished in order to absorb as many men as we had anticipated. I hope that the reduced Estimate will not allow the private contractor more scope in discharging men and that men will not be employed in smaller numbers than was originally anticipated. r want to refer also to what is called the "Royal Reserve of Merchant Cruisers." I say openly that I know nothing about this particular subject. I see that it is intended to spend £8,000 more on this Reserve. Would I be presumptuous if I asked the hon. Gentleman to explain what is meant by "Merchant Cruisers"?
The last point to which I wish to refer is the Appropriation-in-Aid, Item L. I see here it states, "Recoveries from contractors in respect of cancelled orders greater than allowed for." Under that head there is £5,000 more than was originally anticipated. I wish to know how far orders have been cancelled. What is the nature of the cancelled orders? What parts of the country do these orders affect? It is important, when we are spending £5,000 more than was anticipated, to get an explanation of what the recoveries from contractors mean. Some of us who represent shipbuilding constituencies want to know what is this cancelled work, what is the reason for it, and if it cannot now be put in hand? On page 12. Vote 13, Section A, I see a reference to "Half-pay and unemployed pay," and I notice that the Government are spending £7,300 more than was anticipated. In connection with unemployed pay, I want to know how the Admiralty pay this money. Does it go only to officers, or does it apply to workmen engaged in the yards or to naval ratings, the ordinary sailor, in the same way as it applies to an officer? I put these questions with no wish to delay the Committee. I congratulate the Government on this increase of wages, and the only wish I can express, on behalf of many of the workers, is that the increase might have been even greater and the Supplementary Estimates for an even larger amount.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Although I cannot agree with everything that the hon. Member has just said, I thoroughly sympathise with his point of view. Seeing that there is only a certain sum
of money to be spent on the naval requirements of the country, I would like to see that money spent in the national dockyards rather than in the subsidising of private enterprise.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to be embarking on a very wide question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Let me explain what I said. I said that there may be differences of opinion about the placing of the cruisers order, or where they ought to be built, but that once the House of Commons has decided on construction we ought all to agree that the work should be put in hand at once in order to absorb the unemployed.

Major HORELISHA: I quite agree. I accept the hon. Member's statement. I sympathise with his point of view, which is, no doubt, that as much money as possible should be spent in the private shipyards in his own constituency. I have no wish to misrepresent him in any way. This Supplementary Estimate is, as the Financial Secretary has said, mainly necessitated by the Sutton judgment. As far as that is concerned, the dockyards are in a very peculiar position. They are composed entirely of men with a peculiar type of skill which is indispensable to the country, and their position is different from that of a great many other employés who joined up at the beginning of the War in response to a certain circular invitation—an invitation offered to those who joined up and served during the War of their civil pay during the period of their engagement. When bonuses came to be given the bonuses were withheld as not being part of the pay. The Sutton judgment has decided that bonus should have been paid to these men. But during this period most of the dockyard hands were not allowed to go to the Front. Therefore, I trust very much that the Admiralty will view their position with some generosity and consideration. When they were allowed to go they were in many cases enlisted under the Military Service Acts and were deprived of civil pay during the period of their engagement. In view of the fact that all these men were ready to go at the outbreak of War, and indeed anxious to go, but were for the most part restrained from so doing, I hope that the Financial
Secretary is going to stretch the point as much as possible, and, wherever he can, to give the full benefit of these judgments to the dockyards as well as to the lads under 18—of whom there were a great many, who, of course, were not allowed to go, as they were not of age, but were subsequently conscribed in the ordinary way—and such women as joined the W.A.A.C.'s and the W.R.N.S. I hope that he will not take the narrow legal point of view in this matter.
I would like to know how much it has cost the Government to fight these cases and whether any sum is included in this Estimate, or whether it comes under another Estimate. The case cost the men a great deal of money. I see that the Financial Secretary shakes his head. I understand, therefore, that there is no sum included in this Estimate, but that it is borne in the Estimate of another Department. The Financial Secretary referred to the 4s. bonus. What categories of dockyard employés were excluded from the benefit of that bonus? Were the women, the young labourers and apprentices, excluded? If so, why were they excluded? Was it because they had no representation on the Whitley Council. and if they had no such representation will he take steps to readjust the machinery so that an increase of this sort applies to all, whether they be adequately represented, inadequately represented, or not represented at all? The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Pensions (Increase) Act. I hope to hear from him that all the increases which are due to his pensioners have now been paid. The hon. Gentleman is aware that a considerable amount of anxiety has been felt by these pensioners on account of the delay of which the Admiralty has been guilty, unwittingly, in liquidating its obligations. There is one further question. I notice in Vote 10, Sub-head B, under the heading "New Works," that as much money has not been expended as was originally estimated, and I want to know why that money has not been expended, particularly in view of the fact that it would have given a great impetus to the absorption of the unemployed in the dockyard towns. I want to know, for instance, about the berth for the floating dock at Devonport.

Mr. DAVIDSON: It is an excess, not a saving.

Major HORE-BELISHA: So much the better, but I want to know about this particular item of the floating dock, because I am not sure that the remark applies to that. How is that berth getting on? It has repercussions not only on the strategical position of the Fleet, but on the Navy, because the ships have to go to Rosyth, and the men have to pay their fares when they come home to Devonport on leave because the dock is not there. It is almost inconceivable to reflect that there is not one single dock big enough to berth a Dreadnought—

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member suggests that more money should be spent on this dock?

Major HORE-BELISHA: No; I was merely inquiring whether the money estimated for had been spent on this dock. I will not pursue that subject any further. I wish to congratulate the Financial Secretary on the great courtesy he has shown in this Debate, and in dealing with matters that. I have brought to his attention.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would like to put sonic considerations of a more general order. As I understand it, the Vote put by the Chair is for £220,000. That, therefore, covers the whole of the items which appear in the White Paper. The figures when they are totalled up show a comparatively small difference between the Estimates of last year and the figures which will have to appear in the Appropriation Accounts and in due course will have to be met out of the revenue of this current year. But if we look at the items, not setting the one off against the other but taking the items one by one, there are some immense differences between the Estimates and the actual expenditure. So great are they, that except in the period since the War, I think they are without parallel in our Navy Votes. Since the War we know that there have been many instances of estimating that went wrong. It was difficult to foresee the market conditions and almost impossible to realise what size the Navy would assume year by year, and in the reductions that took place the pace of the reduction naturally affected the figures. But when there are such
great differences as more than £500,000 under Section 1 of Vote 8, and very nearly £500,000 on the other side under Section 3, it is not enough to set one off against the other and say that the bad estimating was only £110,000 out. It was indeed £500,000 out on the one Vote and £400,000 out on the other, and it is not the difference between these two figures which is the measure of the error, but the sum of the two. So far as error is concerned, there was an error of nearly £1,000,000 on these two items alone. When we come to Votes 11 and 12 there is also an immense difference between the original estimate and the actual expenditure. Vote 12 is largely affected by the Sutton decision, but the other Votes are not affected by anything which has happened in the Law Courts. There has been one change which has affected many of these Votes, namely, the increase in the rates of pay referred to by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Of course, no one thinks the rise in the rates of pay is improper. and the Admiralty are not to be blamed for having made a bad shot at what they anticipated would be the pay in the year 1924–25, but even if we take all the wage items out, there still remain immense differences which can only be the result of very much wider accounting and wider margins than ever occurred in pre-War days.
I do not think it unreasonable to ask the, Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to use all his zeal from the first time he sets foot in the Admiralty Department to bring the Estimates far nearer the actual expenditure than they have 'been in recent years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will never be able to budget closely if there is always to be an effort on the part. of each branch of the Admiralty to have a large balance up its sleeve. This tendency has led in recent years to immense surpluses which have gone to the reduction of debt. Whether they went to the reduction of debt rightly or wrongly is not for us to decide now, but the fact remains that these immense surpluses were not measured on any principle whatever. They were an absolute fluke and they were brought about entirely by the very wide margins taken in the spending Departments in order that they might not be held up at the end of the financial
year, or in order that they might avoid such Supplementary Estimates as those with which we are now faced. On those general considerations I hope I am expressing the views of those who keep a. rather strict eye on Department accounting when I say that the feeling is very general, outside as well as inside this House, that in these times there should be far closer accounting and more exact bookkeeping than there has been at any period since the War, and that the old War feeling with regard to large figures should be exterminated as rapidly as may be.
When we come to some of the items on which there has been heavy expenditure, we can blame neither the Sutton decision nor the decision to increase the rates of pay. For instance, in Section II of Vote 8 the item for timber and timber materials has gone up from £140.000 to £170,000. Surely at a time when timber charges have been declining and the price of timber going down, particularly in the soft woods, it is very difficult to understand why such a bad shot should have been made at the expenditure over the year by the Admiralty on timber. Similarly with regard to metals. The general tendency—though it does not apply to all metals—has been downwards, and the Parliamentary Secretary should explain how it happens that with a tendency to decline, in most metals though not in all, the expenditure should have gone up by £46,000 above what must have been a generous estimate at the beginning of the year. When one comes to the miscellaneous section, one finds under Sub-head E, Section II, Vote 8, for compasses, paint materials, furniture. etc., an increase of nearly £100,000. There must he something seriously wrong in the estimating here. I imagine these are items not only for the navigation instruments but for the means by which we make our ships look smart, and it is strange that there should have been an increase to this amount. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will also give us some explanation on that point.
Under the heading of fuel for the Fleet there is an increase of £228,000. During the very period covered by this enormous increase in expenditure on fuel, coal has been continuously declining and the Admiralty have had an opportunity of placing contracts at lower rates than have been available for many years past while,
as far as I have been able to ascertain, the increase cannot be accounted for by a large increase in the consumption of fuel oil, Fuel oil prices may have moved about a good deal, and it may be that the Parliamentary Secretary does not care to give the Committee the exact prices paid under this heading. It is generally known in trade circles, but I believe it has been the custom in years past not to disclose it in the House. We are supposed to be the only persons who are not to know exactly how much we pay for the fuel burned in our ships. Here, however, we have an increase on a declining market, and I should be obliged if my right hon. Friend would tell me how it arises. If we were told whether there has been any special cause for it, and why it has been found necessary to pay more rather than less for the coal and oil consumed, it would be a little more enlightening for the Committee.
I turn to an entirely different set of items under the heading of Appropriations-in-Aid. There have been some most important adjustments. For instance, under Vote B changes have been made which cover something like £175,000—proceeds from sales of ships and from supplies of stores to other Departments less than anticipated. Would the Parliamentary Secretary let us know whether this refers to the sale of auxiliary ships and old battleships for breaking-up purposes—and if it refers to the latter whether the amount was in any way reduced by the use made of the "Marlborough" for target purposes and for experiment with explosives and projectiles some six weeks or two months ago—or whether it refers to the smaller prices obtained for vessels which have been dismantled. I find at the bottom of this page a most illuminating note:
Clearance of outstanding claims including final settlement of claim by an Allied Government for supplies during the War period, £274,000.
That is the first of three or four items of a similar nature where adjustments have been made between ourselves and Allied Governments and the Dominions. May I ask why an item of this kind appears in these Estimates rather than being dealt with in exactly the same way as other Allied debts. Have we received payment for these materials or has payment been withheld? What is the exact
position between the Admiralty and the similar departments of the Allied Governments which accounts for this large difference? An item for additional bonus to crews of fuelling crafts comes under the same heading and is part of that Appropriation-in-Aid which is provided for by adjustments as between ourselves and an Allied Government and on which the Committee is entitled to some further explanation. A similar transaction appears to be recorded in Item M of Vote 9. In this case there appear to have been large recoveries from private firms and from Dominion and Allied Governments arising out of transactions during previous years. May we have some particulars as to these transactions between ourselves and Allied and Dominion Governments on which there has been a large recovery—so large as to send up the Appropriation-in-Aid from £360,000 to over £800,000, an increase of nearly half a million under this heading alone.
My right hon. Friend might also tell us why there have been large recoveries from private firms? On what grounds were these firms requested to make such very large recoveries? What was the nature of the business dealings between the Government and the private firms which led to these large recoveries? Had there been defects in the supplies sent to the Admiralty, or what other explanation can be given of these recoveries from private firms? I understand they come under the general description of naval armaments, and there must be some explanation for them which either comes within the category of defective work or over-payment beforehand or return of materials or goods which have not been taken up by the Government but on which payment had been made. It would he well if the Committee were told the exact reason for these large recoveries from private firms as well as from the Dominions and Allied Governments. There are some other increases of a rather startling character in various items throughout the whole Votes, but I think these may be generally put down to the fact that for a long time past it has not been the custom in the various departments of the Admiralty to apply the pre-War standards of accuracy to their accounting, and I dare say something is due to the fact that an immense number of sub-heads
appear which did not appear in pre-War days and these automatically increase the charge on the Admiralty Vote. In making these criticisms and inquiries, I am not actuated by a spirit unfriendly to the Admiralty. I believe if there is any Department which ought to have the money which it requires for its purpose, it is the Admiralty, but I think it necessary for the good repute of the Admiralty itself and in the interests of the more businesslike management of the whole affairs of the Navy that our accounting should be done with a greater degree of accuracy, that there should be an elimination, as far as possible, of all waste, and that, in the completion of the annual accounts, we should fine the balance between the Estimate with which the year opens and the actual expenditure, down to a narrower margin than appears in the accounts.

Sir F. WISE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) has dealt with practically all the points which arise on these Votes, but I wish to ask the Financial Secretary a question on Vote 11, Sub-head D, relating to telegraphic and telephonic communications. I notice there is an increase there of £63,000, and there is also a reference in Sub-head Z to miscellaneous payments and allowances amounting to £312,300. Both these sub-heads are for war work, and I should like to know whether this is a final payment for war work.

Mr. AMMON: I also desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions, not by way of adverse criticism, but in the hope of receiving favourable replies. I observe in Vote 5, Subsection C, an increase in the amount of money to be voted in connection with the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth for the training of naval cadets. I should like to know whether anything is being done with regard to the scheme which was in mind to find facilities for people of humbler means in connection with the training of naval officers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us some information with regard to this matter and let us know if this Vote is a step in the direction I have indicated. In Vote 9, Subsection D, there is a reduction of £4,000 in respect of the wages of police forces, and this I presume is largely due to the
substitution of the Metropolitan Police the newer force which has been called in to do that work. At the risk of repeating what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Fiore-Belisha) I wish to ask for a statement with regard to the three sections of persons who would come under Vote 12 in regard to arrears of civil pay. First, there are persons who originally volunteered to serve with the forces, who were detained owing to the exigencies of the service, but were afterwards called to the colours when the Military Service Act came into operation. The others are those who volunteered for service, were medically examined and rejected at the time, and were subsequently called up for active Service after the Military Service Act was in operation. The first section are numbers of people who were actually under age, but serving with the colours, and willing to serve, though not able, and who were called to the colours after the Military Service Act Was passed. Will they be included when this money is paid out? I put these questions from the point of view of one who has been in a like position with the hon. Member representing the Department, and of one, therefore, who has a certain amount of sympathy with him but in order that we might be quite clear on the different points.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I will first of all reply to the general observations of the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). I can assure him that, so far as I am concerned, there is nothing which will give me greater pleasure than close estimating in the Admiralty. It is not always easy, but, as far as it lies with the Admiralty, I am quite sure we shall do all that we can to get our expenditure more or less in line with the Estimates which we present to the House. The right hon. Gentleman called attention to Vote 8, Section II, and pointed out the increased expenditure under Subheads A and b. The information at my disposal suggests that expenditure in both these cases has been due in the main to variations in prices of timber and of certain metals required by the Admiralty, the prices of which have increased. So far as the question about an Allied Government is concerned. I would call my right hon. Friend's attention to the note at the bottom of the page. This is a final settlement of a very old difficulty,
which it was not anticipated would be satisfactorily settled so quickly, and although, from the purely financial point of view, it is regrettable that this sum should have to be included, it is satisfactory to think that a settlement has been arrived at with Italy in this matter. Now let me deal with the question raised—

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Can the hon. Member give an explanation of Subhead M, on page 10, which is of exactly the same nature, but, obviously, it cannot be for the same Government, and it includes private firms?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Certainly. The position is this: Ever since the War, owing to circumstances which arose during the War and the difficulty in emergencies of making precise arrangements with regard to the recovery of sums of money, due in some cases to the fact that accounts were not kept very strictly, and due in other cases to losses of ships and their papers, it was very difficult to arrive at agreements with persons against whom the Admiralty had claims, and in many cases it has been, unhappily, necessary to seek the Law Courts and arbitration in trying to get agreements with them. The result is, that from time to time these cases—I am glad to think there are very few of them left—have arisen, and settlements have been arrived at. These recoveries from contractors have practically all arisen from circumstances due to the War. We hope, and I am sure every hon. Member hopes, that these things will gradually disappear, but until they do, it is very difficult to get a close estimate.
It is exactly the came difficulty that we had over the ease of the Dominion of Canada, which is referred to on Vote 9. An agreement has been arrived at with the Dominion of Canada which was not expected, and, therefore, it was not provided for in the Estimates when they were presented to the House last year. As regards the question of Dartmouth, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) asked for an explanation and details as to how much a cadet costs. He quoted the sum of £462 as the sum which the Geddes Committee had given. That did not include the amount of fees, which is set off against that sum, so that the net sum works out at £396.

Sir F. WISE: Are they parents' fees?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes. Now, the net cost of training a cadet at Dartmouth works out at £208 per annum, made up of £314 gross, less £106 fees. It is difficult to estimate accurately, but there is an estimate now for the coming year, which brings the net cost down to £160, made up of £285 for training, less £125 for fees.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the hon. Member talks of the gross amount which a cadet costs at Dartmouth, does that not include the pay of the officers, all the naval side, and the marine instructors, and so on, which you would not have in an ordinary school at all?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Certainly. The gross cost includes the whole of the upkeep, the technical staff, and the whole of what are known as overhead charges.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Could the hon. Gentleman tell me how many actual teachers there are, and how many are officers as distinct from teachers

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am afraid I cannot do that off-hand. I cannot carry those details in my head, but I have given a reply to the question which the hon. Member put to me. That is the position, and so I think the cost which should be borne by the Navy Votes has been reduced, since the Geddes Committee reported, from £396 to £100, and that, from the taxpayers' point of view, is not without its advantages.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Having reduced the cost of the cadets, obviously the cadets are not getting so much tuition, and has the Admiralty accordingly reduced the fees to the parents?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No. The new entrance fees have been increased, and that is provided for in these Estimates. The fees have been increased, and the overhead charges have been reduced by a certain amount of economy, and the net result is that the cadet now is educated at a cost to the taxpayer on the Navy Votes of £160, as compared with £396 when the Geddes Committee reported. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asked a series of questions with regard to the inspection staff, and called attention to the fact that the amount provided had not been spent, and that there had been a saving. I would
like to point out to the hon. Member that the building of a ship is subject to variations from day to day, or rather at intervals. There are delays, and there were various causes which made it unnecessary to enlist the full staff provided for by the Estimates at the time, and, therefore, it is entirely due to the fact that the staff was not required in the period covered by the Estimate. It was in no sense any desire, I am certain, to prevent people being employed.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The feeling among the men is this, that the delay was caused by the employers holding up a contract, because they thought there would be lower wages operating on a particular day.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I have no knowledge of that, and I do not think I can hold myself responsible for what employers do in that way. I can only speak for the inspection of the ships themselves, or parts of them, and that is the reason why the inspection staff was not brought up to the full sum total provided for in the Estimates. The hon. Member also asked about the cancellation of orders. The reason for the cancellation of the orders to which he referred is the Washington Conference. There were certain contracts which had to he cancelled because we put our names to the Washington Treaty. May I take the opportunity of thanking the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha) for what he said about me? He certainly is a most assiduous Member, and if ever there was a little cherub sitting up aloft looking after the sailors, I think the hon. and gallant Member might be so described. He asked me several questions, and I can only answer, with regard to the application of the 220,000 provided for expenditure arising out of the Sutton judgment, that I think he can rely on the Admiralty sympathetically applying these funds to those persons who are what might be called border-line cases. I am sure they will get full sympathy from the Admiralty. Naturally, I cannot lay down hard and fast rules, but I am sure the hon. and gallant. Member can rely on the Admiralty treating their employés with the greatest sympathy. I think I have replied to practically all the points o that have been raised, and if I have
missed any, I shall read my OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and—

Sir F. WISE: What about my questions with regard to Vote 11?

6.0 P. M.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I may tell my hon. Friend that sub-head D makes provision for the final settlement with regard to the user of wireless stations during the War. As to the question he asked me in regard to the wider aspect, namely, whether all War claims were settled, that, I am afraid, unfortunately, is not the case. There are still some outstanding claims, and difficulties have to be settled, but, so far as sub-head D is concerned, that also, I understand, is a final settlement.

Major HORE-BELISHA: There is the question of the four-shilling bonus.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am sorry I have not been able to get all the information the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked for, but the arbitration award excluded women. With regard to the others, I will make inquiries.

Mr. AMMON: Will the hon. Gentleman say, with regard to Vote 5, sub-head C, whether that increase means that steps are to be taken to democratise the scheme?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I believe that scheme is still being considered.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 3rd March.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of amount of loans which may be guaranteed under 11

& 12 Geo. 5. c. 65, and extension of period for giving guarantees.)

Amendment proposed [3rd March]: In page 1, line 16, at the end, to insert:
(3) A policy committee shall be set up which will be responsible to the Treasury for the consideration of national requirements and the promotion of suitable schemes in this connection."—[Mr. Morton.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. STEPHEN: I desire to support this Amendment, and my reason for doing so is that in the earlier stages of this Measure we had occasion to put before the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a certain amount of criticism of the Advisory Committee, or, if not criticism, at least suggestions in connection with the carrying on the work of that Committee. Some of us have felt that that Committee has not been sufficiently in touch with matters of Government policy and with practical considerations that might be put before them. It was said, in reply, that that would be fatal to the satisfactory working of this Committee. It was suggested, for instance, that it would mean that there would be influences in the Lobby if the Minister were to come into the Committee in a more authoritative position, that it would introduce considerations, which, all along, many Members of the House have felt should not be brought into this matter. I am aware that after the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) moved his Amendment, we had a reply from the Minister in charge of the Measure, and it seemed to me the Minister went back a good deal upon what was the position not only of himself but of more than one of his predecessors in regard to this Advisory Committee. We have been assured that the big function of the Advisory Committee, already operating under previous legislation, has been practically to look at the proposition from the financial viewpoint—are the financial considerations satisfactory? Is this Act good financial business for the Treasury? If it is good financial business, then let it go.
Then, in the reply, the Minister went on to assure us that this Committee had been active in trying to bring within reach of the various commercial interests of the country the advantages of this scheme, and that they tried to function in a certain initiative manner. I do not feel at all satisfied with the position disclosed in that reply. I think, possibly, there may be something to be said, from what we have gathered from the past, that this Advisory Committee should be kept as a financial committee, and kept in the secluded atmosphere in which so many Members of the House have felt that it is necessary this Committee should work, away from any such influences as might
come from Lobbying, and the Minister being pursuaded that it was a really good thing which ought to be encouraged, and that the Minister might use his influence to get a scheme put through. If that be so, I believe we have got there a really good ground for the Financial Secretary agreeing to accept this Amendment to set up a policy committee.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton discussed in particular the question of shipbuilding, and the great advantage of a policy committee in connection with that industry, which has already received certain of these guarantees. I want to refer to the shipbuilding industry again, because, since the Debate took place, something has happened, which, I think, makes the plea of the hon. Member for Bridgeton all the stronger. I refer to the fact that the Furness Withy Company has seen occasion to put a contract out of the country to a firm in Hamburg, and if we had had this policy committee, the committee could have been approached by this shipbuilding firm and it would have been the business of the committee, in the event of such a contract going out of the country, to make inquiries into the whole position. As a representative of the Clydeside in this House, I would make hold to 'say that with exchange advantages, with hours advantages and all the rest of the things, of which we have. heard in connection with the shipbuilding industry, Clydeside, so far as the workmen and the direction of the shipbuilding yards are concerned, would be able to meet anything in the way of foreign competition as regards the building of the ships. Yet here is this contract, which has gone out of the country, and, as far as we can see, there is no department to take cognisance of such an effect: whereas if we had had this policy committee, it would have been its natural business to go into the whole matter.
The Minister of Labour last night made certain grave statements as to the position of industries in this country, and referred to the question of efficiency in the workshops. While the Minister of Labour is there, and has a certain work to carry on, there is no committee of experts to go into such questions intimately, to find how we could get these measures of efficiency in organisation and the carrying on of the business of the country. We have suggested in this Amendment that a
policy committee under this legislation should be set up, and such a committee, we are convinced, would fulfil a very useful function. It could take cognisance of the way in which contracts which might have been placed here are going out of this country. It could take cognisance as to whether industries were working efficiently, and in the best interests of the community. At Question Time to-day, a question was put by an hon. Member for a North Scottish constituency in which he suggested a scheme under which certain work should be carried on, which would be of great advantage to small landowners and to the agricultural population of Scotland. He was told what it would cost!
Again, if we had had a policy committee it would have been good business for this Committee to consider whether such an industry, by being revived in the districts, would not have been an advantage to the whole community. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us in his reply that, after all, while there was much in what was said by the hon. Member for Bridgeton on the organisation and development of policy in connection with industry, there was so much of responsibility that it had to be left with the Government. We do not challenge that. We say, however, that the Government should have an instrument. We say that under this legislation you would get a fairly good instrument created which would be of the very greatest service, through the Committee, to the Government and to the general industry of the country.
You have got so many Departments of State! Here is something, a Committee, which would establish a certain connection between the various Departments of State, and would look at the welfare of the community from the point of view of all the Departments. To my mind, since this legislation has every indication of being permanent legislation, we cannot too soon have such a general Committee in order that we may have the best advantages for the community. In a previous stage I thought to impress that point upon the attention of the Minister—that this legislation had now become pretty much a permanent feature of our legislation. I pointed to the fact that while some considered that such a suggestion as this was introducing the thin end of the wedge, that the thin end of the
wedge had been introduced long ago. If the State is going to take its part in industry and in guaranteeing facilities, then there should be a Committee which u ill not only have regard to whether the venture is a sound financial venture, but whether it is going to add to the general well-being of the community: whether it is going to be in a line with the general policy of the Government itself, and whether it also will make for the advantage, comfort, and well-being of the mass of the people.
I hope that the Minister is going to meet us in connection with this Amendment. I do not just know how far he may go, but I think he can go the whole length. If, however, it is too much for him, then I would suggest that he might give us some assurance in connection with the passage of next year's Bill, because, he will quite agree, there will be a next year's Bill. Also there is the possibility at the present time that he will be on the opposite benches: that is to say, if ill-health keeps away from him. Allowing for this, it is most likely that he will be there, on the doorstep of the Cabinet, if he is not in the Cabinet itself. Consequently, I think that he might see his way to meet us in this connection and give us some assurance on this point that we are pressing upon him, that all this money, all this public credit, should bring some return to the people of this country in some form, if not in the way of them getting direct benefit, or part of the proceeds, at least in the fact that the whole policy of the concerns which will he helped will be for the general welfare of the people.

Mr. P. HARRIS: It is just as well to take this opportunity to criticise the general policy connected with these Trade Facilities Acts. This, of course, is very exceptional legislation, all arising out of the War, and all an honest attempt, if possible, to do something to meet the problem of unemployment. These efforts, so ingeniously devised, should have had more success than they have had up to the present. One would have thought that these ingenious methods would stimulate industry, the reorganisation of trade, and would have done something to deplete the number of the unemployed. Apparently, however, the opportunities offered to the number of men normally employed in industry do not seem to
have substantially increased. The great danger, so far as I can see, in these trade facilities, is that, on the whole, inevitably, they go to big financial corn-ponies. I have always been a little suspicious as to whether these special facilities are actually, on the whole, increasing the amount of employment. Where you have a big financial interest, big shipping companies, big railway companies, or any powerful industry, if you have a sound financial proposition, these companies have really no serious difficulty in getting money from the general public.
Under the administration of these various Acts they have to satisfy the special Committee that they have put forward a sound financial proposition. I have always felt that we should approach this problem from an entirely different angle. We have all of our labour now fairly well organised through the Employment Exchanges, and we are in a position to know the men in each district who are out of work, what are the trades they belong to, and what is their particular skill! I should have thought that to make the Trade Facilities machinery really successful, it should be linked up much more closely with the Employment Ex changes. At present the Employment Exchanges are largely passive, those concerned walking in and out and lining up for unemployment benefit. The Exchanges discharge their duties very efficiently, on the one hand paying out unemployment insurance, and on the other hand registering the trades and periods of unemployment of the men and women.
I should have thought that this machinery might have been made much more effective through the committees of the Exchanges—in many cases very efficient committees, if these committees, attached to the Exchanges, had the obligation put upon them to find out what particular trades in their area were depressed, the causes of depression, whether lack of markets, whether the machinery of the trades concerned was out of date, or whether the cause of depression was insufficient capital. In other words, I would make the initiative rather come from the Government than from the trades themselves. If the traders and leaders are really conscious that they have got a good proposition, and they need capital, I do not think that even at the present time they will
have any very great difficulty in getting it. On the other hand, I have found, and other hon. Friends have had the same experience, that many industries are willing to jog along on half-time, with their old methods and old machinery, waiting for an improvement in trade. Meanwhile men who are thrown out in consequence of the depression in t he area are drawing unemployment insurance and the responsibility for their future is not on their industry.
If the organisation attached to the Employment Exchanges could make real inquiry as to whether the machinery provided by this legislation could be utilised in order to stimulate the industries in their area and to find employment, some real progress might be made in getting men back into industry and trade, and into regular employment. I go further. I know there are a great number of factories at the present time actually working overtime. But if they had more plant, more machinery and more capital available they could actually employ a very much greater number of men. Surely that is the purpose of all this legislation? Is it not to relieve unemployment and get the workers back into their own ordinary industry, their own ordinary categories of trade? If this legislation does not succeed in that purpose, we are largely wasting our efforts.
I do not know if the proposal now before the House is the right way to achieve the particular purpose in view. Certainly it does attempt something. But I do not know that a special committee is really going to be effective. What is wanted is local co-operation, and to use the existing knowledge in possession of the Employment Exchanges as to the amount of unemployment and the particular trades affected. There is one trade in one district, the cotton trade in another, shipbuilding in another, the woodwork trade in London—all these various industries have received a tremendous shock because of the disorganisation throughout the world through the War. We have not been able to recover from that shock in many cases, and the areas have not adapted their machinery and plant to the new demands, the new appliances, new methods of business that came about after the War. I would suggest to the Financial Secretary to the
Treasury, and particularly to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, that to make this machinery provided by this kind of legislation effective, the way is not to give these facilities to firms who already know their case is a, good proposition, and can raise the necessary money in the money market: we should rather use this machinery to assist the Employment Exchanges to get their workers who are out of employment absorbed in the local industries which are at present languishing, which need the stimulus of new credit or new markets to get them going again.

Mr. SHORT: I rise to support this Amendment, which seeks the appointment of a policy committee to assist in dealing with the guarantees that we give under the Trade Facilities Acts. I have never viewed with great favour the proposals embodied in this Bill. I have very little faith in what I term artificial props to maintain a system which confers no great advantages by its continuation upon the people. We have, of course, been passing through a very abnormal and unprecedented period. We have had as many as 2,000,000 of unemployed. We have been forced, necessarily, to the adoption of various proposals, many of them artificial in themselves. We cannot close our eyes to the need for some kind of assistance, and though I have never favoured these proposals, I have extended my support to Bills of this character from time to time. Up to now we have provided something in the neighbourhood of £65,000,000 in the way of guarantees, and under this Bill we are increasing that amount by £5,000,000, and it seems to be essential and desirable that we should have some co-ordinating influence in connection with these matters. Last year I supported an Amendment to place upon the Advisory Committee direct representatives of labour and capital, and I was hopeful, the right hon. Gentleman who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that something of that kind would be accepted. However, they did not see their way to do it; but this Amendment at any rate is a step in the right direction.
The only reason for introducing this Bill is to try to relieve unemployment, and it is suggested that if we provide another £5,000,000 on the top of what we have already provided by way of guarantee we shall be alleviating, if not eliminating, the causes of unemployment to some extent. But is it not a tragedy, with such provisions as are included in this Bill, and such powers as we have hitherto exercised, that a large order, involving £1,000,000 or thereabouts, in connection with the building of certain ships, should pass from this country to Germany? A committee such as is proposed in this Amendment would be considering, not merely the policy of the Government, if they have a policy at all upon these matters, but also the requirements of the country; and knowing the deplorable condition of the shipbuilding industry, and the allied engineering trades, they would direct and focus the attention of the trade facilities people upon the needs of industry. Such a committee would have made some inquiries as to whether such a large order could not be placed in this country, and if it could have been placed here, with the encouragement and the support that this Bill would give, we should have accomplished a very excellent thing. I do not know what my hon. Friend on that bench is muttering. I do not know what he is saying about this idea; but do I understand him to suggest by inference that it would have been a good thing to have kept this order in this country?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department) indicated ascent.

Mr. SHORT: You do? Well, that is the purpose of this Amendment. The Advisory Committee and I do not depreciate the value of the work they have done—act independently of the Government, with no relation to the policy of the Government in connection with the grave problem of unemployment. They have no relation to anybody or anything. All that happens, so far as I understand it, is that if someone with a proposition puts it before them and they are satisfied that it is a decent thing, it goes along. The plea behind this Amendment is that there should be some machinery which would enable the power and the support that
you can give to an industry under the provisions of this Bill to be directed to the immediate needs of some particular industry. Up to now we have received nothing but a negative reply on these matters. Every time we have criticised the Advisory Committee and have suggested that they might do a little more, be a little more active than they have been, give encouragement to this industry as compared with that—which they have done, and which is recorded in the White Papers—we have always been told it would be unwise. We have no evidence, though; we have only got their opinion.
All I want to say, in conclusion, is that there seems to be a strong need for co-ordination in connection with these matters. I do not want this Committee to be the subject of political influences. I do not want to see a lot of lobbying in the Lobbies of this House. I do not want to encourage Members of this House to get up from the benches and advocate this, that or the other for some ulterior purpose or motive, and I think we are big enough and sound enough public servants to lift ourselves above that kind of thing, and I do not think the fear of that is a reasonable objection to this proposal. I urge the Government not to reject this Amendment merely because it is a new idea, because it involves some new principle, because it is going to shake up, as it were, the Advisory Committee. It is a reasonable Amendment, and one which, if adopted and practised in the spirit in which the speeches are being made from this aide, will improve the administration of this Bill, and will enable us to assist those industries which hitherto have escaped the support which they ought to have had under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. TAYLOR: I must apologise for rising again on the particular subject of the Trade Facilities Bill, but I want respectfully to put a couple of questions, and to ask that this time we may be given an explicit answer, instead of the kind of answer which the right hon. Gentleman who replied for the Government gave us on the occasion of the last Debate. The first question is, Will the Trade Facilities Act be available for financing trade with Russia on equal terms with any other country? The reply given to me last time was that the only two applications
under the Trade Facilities Act for financing trade between this country and Russia were applications which were turned down by the Labour Government. No explanation was given of the reason why those applications were turned down. I suppose that at the moment such a reply seemed to fill the bill. I want to know, on behalf of people who depend for their livelihood, or who did depend for their livelihood, upon the export of goods to Russia—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech. He must confine himself to the actual Amendment before the Committee, which is concerned with the setting up of a policy committee.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not in order upon this particular Amendment to discuss precisely this question which would be better handled by a committee responsible to this House than by a committee which is not responsible?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not gather that that was the hon. Member's argument. He was speaking on the general policy of the Bill, which is a Second Reading argument.

Mr. TAYLOR: I am sorry if I have transgressed, but I was just about to emphasise the importance of the principle embodied in the Amendment. From my point of view it is extremely important, if public credit is t'.) be used, and the resources of the State are to be pledged to support private concerns, that regard should be had to other than purely economic considerations. Therefore, I think the proposal contained in the Amendment is one that would help us to get consideration for export industries which are faced with a difficult situation. I would be glad if a definite reply could be given to the question as to whether or not the Trade Facilities Act will be available for the purpose I have named.
My second question is, Will the Government give very careful consideration, in the application of the principles of this Act, to the establishment of new industries in areas that are suffering from abnormal unemployment? If you establish a committee of this kind, it will be able to look at the propositions put before it from rather a different point of
view from those who are judging the proposition as economic or monetary experts, and if we are going to pledge the credit of the State, ostensibly for the purpose of relieving unemployment, we ought to have preference, or at any rate full consideration, for all proposals which are aimed at establishing new industries in areas where they are suffering from abnormal unemployment and where loss of trade is of such a character that it may possibly be a permanent thing. I would especially draw attention to those areas where there is a large reserve of unemployed female labour, and where, possibly, the facilities of this Act could be used for establishing entirely new industries.

Mr. CONNOLLY: In rising to support this Amendment, I want to say, first, that I have criticised the personnel of the Committee that already deals with these applications, and said that I thought that, over and above dealing with the claims that came in, they might make the facilities under this Act more widely known, especially to the smaller firms. I rise to-night to supplement the remarks that have been made in support of the policy committee. The Prime Minister, is speaking last Friday, said in a most admirable speech, that what was wanted in industry to-day was not interference by politicians, but the getting together of men who understood industry on both sides of the table to hammer out a solution. With regard to that, before employers can safely recommend to what I might term our side of the table, closer co-operation, in my opinion, they ought to have closer co-operation amongst themselves. When I am speaking about a policy committee, and the necessity for men like those sitting on these benches being represented on that committee, I want to say that we do understand something with regard to the business with which we have been engaged all our lives. I want to emphasise the fact that employers of labour do not confine, even to their own side, those things that might materially help themselves and also help the industry. That is one of the reasons why British ships have been sent to Germany to be built.
I note here two items of expenditure that came under my own notice with regard to shipbuilding. I take the case of two firms quite close at hand working on two sister ships. I was supervising one, and a person of my acquaintance was supervising the other. The ship being built in my department cost £9,170 while the ship being built on the other side of the river cost £23,700. When you hear figures like these, then you begin to understand why ships are going to Germany to be built. With regard to the two great firms I am speaking of, in one port one did not know what the other was doing, and they could not put the real figures before this House which I am putting. The heads of departments were conferring, and I was conferring with my colleagues, but the two firms concerned were quite ignorant of the comparative cost of the two ships.
With regard to overhead charges they are known to all those who supervise industry, and there are supervisory costs four times as great in some parts of the country as they are in others. In regard to directors' fees, you find the same thing as you find in reference to supervisory charges. I am concerned with those ships which have gone to Germany, and despite what the Prime Minister said that no help can be given by politicians, I would like to know the real reason why the ships about which we have heard so much have gone to Germany to be built. No price has been stated in the newspapers, but the difference in the tenders has been given. In one case it is placed at £6 per ton, or a difference of £60,000 and in another case £10 per ton, or a difference of £100,000. As a matter of fact, we cannot get to know whether the £60,000 or the £100,000 difference is a correct figure. This is only a symptom of the disease which is eating like a canker into the shipbuilding industry to-day.
What is the use of the Premier saying that closer co-operation is necessary when we cannot get to know what the actual facts are in regard to the cost. What is going on now has been going on all the time. The President of the Board of Trade knows that when, the Australian Syndicate was over here to find out what was the reason for £70,000 difference between the highest and lowest tenders for the Australian meat ships, a deputation appeared before. the Board of Trade
and asked the President to intervene with the British shipbuilders. There was a difference of £70,000 and the price was £8 15s. per ton, which is 25 per cent. greater on the tonnage of 1914. What do the employers in the shipbuilding industry tell our representatives. They have been telling us that if they could only build ships at £10 per ton they could get orders.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in going into minute details of the shipbuilding industry on this Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I point out that this Amendment deals with the appointment of a policy committee which would have power to consider appropriate schemes as well as to go into matters like those which are being raised by the hon. Member. Would not part of the policy of the committee be to examine such cases as the hon. Member has been placing before the Committee, because he has been simply quoting these cases as an argument in favour of the setting up of such a committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The details which were being given by the hon. Member seem to me to be more suitable to a castings committee, than to a policy committee as proposed in this Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN: We want to know clearly the limits within which we must keep on this Amendment. Would not a policy committee, in considering schemes, have to take into account the various costs, and in that way a policy committee would necessarily be a costings committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Clearly the Committee cannot discuss the general policy of this Bill on every Amendment.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I will not develop further that phase of the matter. My object is to bring to the notice of this Committee things that might come under the purview of a Palicy Committee. I will now come back to the Trade Facilities Act, and I want to make a suggestion based upon the giving of these orders by British shipowners to German builders. There are many factors that enter into this matter. It is not only the cost of labour but many other things. I might go over to the German and the Dutch
shipyards and compare what I find there in the shape of subsidy with what obtains here, and I am going to suggest that this difficulty should be met by the Trade Facilities Committee. There are subsidies given in Germany and Holland, and, in contradistinction to our Trade Facilities Guarantees Loans at 4 per cent. interest, you have German guaranteed loans at no percentage at all for the first three years, 4 per cent. for the fourth year, and 6 per cent. for the fifth year. That leaves behind altogether what is provided for by our Trade Facilities Act. Even in those matters the Germans arc ahead of us.
We cannot get to know exactly what are the German subsidies, but I know that four of the boats which were sent over there to be built were subsidised to the extent, in one case, of 30 per cent. of the wages paid by the municipalities, and that was augmented by the Government to 50 per cent. of the wages, Consider that in contradistinction to what we do here with our rates forced up by unemployment and other things. The Poor Rate in the city, part of which I have the honour to represent, is 5s. 5d. in the and that is almost as large as the total rate was in 1914. How are we going to keep our orders at home as long as that sort of thing obtains? Our rates now are 24, times higher than they were in 1914.
I suggest that the Policy Committee might take into consideration the protection of our trade at home in so far as the decay of the trade is due to artificial conditions on the Continent. We should not subsidise an industry that cannot stand on its own legs under fair conditions. I have worked in three of the largest shipyards in the country, and I have no hesitation in saying that neither German, Dutch, nor Americans can compare with us for workmanship or the designing of ships, and they cannot take from us our trade if we are placed on an equal footing with them. Has anyone in this House ever compared the cost of ironworks in the German, Dutch, or American yards? That is the reason why our shipowners are sending orders to Germany.
As far as constructive cost is concerned I have evidence in my possession showing that there is no other place in the world
can compete with us. The reason why artificial conditions exist at the present time is on account of the difference in the value of capital abroad, and the Germans, on account. of the inflation of their capital, occupy a most advantageous position. They have also their subsidies and guaranteed loans on much more favourable terms than we have under the Trade Facilities Act, and I think it is nearly time that we got down to the bedrock of this business, and did something to sustain our industries in a way that will counteract what is going on on the Continent. Under the Trade Facilities Act we ought to be able to consider the removal of the taxation on the shipbuilding and engineering industries, and if we cannot wipe out the cost of taxation altogether in this respect something ought to be done to relieve it. On several occasions this House has considered the question of the rating of machinery. The taxes placed on the shipbuilding and engineering industries are not imposed in any other country in the world where machinery is not attached to the hereditament. Every electrical machine and pneumatic machine is taxed here in, England and in England alone, and that is a thing that ought to be wiped out under the Trade Facilities Act. In this way I think a Policy Committee could give some relief to our hard-pressed shipbuilding and engineering trades, which I am sure could stand on their own legs under fair conditions.

7.0 P.M.

The Prime Minister said on Thursday last that politicians could not help in industry but if they cannot help, at any rate they have done a great deal of harm, and the very fact that we have had to resort to artificial means under the Trade Facilities Act, has been necessitated by political action taken in the name of the nation. Application for relief under the Trade Facilities Act came immediately after the Treaty of Versailles, when nearly £400,000,000 of shipping was handed over to our country. All ships between a thousand—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee

Mr. CONNOLLY: Well, Sir, I will conclude by saying that it is very difficult to know what comes within the purview of
the Committee that is to be set up. I am trying to show reasons why a Policy Committee ought to be set up, and the whole industry surveyed, because it will need to be surveyed. If the differences in price between these ships that have gone to Germany are as stated it simply means this, that all industrial and all constructive work was given for nothing. We are still going to compete with them, and it is time we sat down together, and looked at things fairly and squarely in the face. I am trying to give reasons why a Policy Committee should be set up, and men brought into it from this side of the House. We are not all what we are termed to be, "friends of every country but our own." I love my country, and I am prepared to sit down with anybody and discuss these important matters and give the benefit of what experience I have to put the industry on its feet again. I may say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Policy Committee is something they can support to bring us together to see if we can devise means for resuscitating our industries. On these benches we are not making a fetish of certain things. If a certain industry requires protection, we are prepared to give consideration to it and our advice and help. I want to earnestly appeal to the Members on the other side to give us support in this matter that a Policy Committee shall be set up under the Act to go thoroughly into these matters.

Mr. LANSBURY: We are in an extraordinary position in discussing this matter of trade facilities. I think a. Policy Committee is very necessary, because under the Trade Facilities Act you grant money for the supplying of people. That is because private enterprise has so utterly and lamentably failed. We often hear that the majority in this House, the overwhelming majority, is against Socialism. I would rather have Socialism pure and simple, but if you will have it in this half-and-half, halting doddering and stumbling fashion, people like myself ought to be on the Committee to see you do it in the right way. None of us on these benches now need worry about finding arguments in favour of State action. State trading. State banking—in fact. State everything. [An HON. MEMBER: "And State company promotion!"] And State company promotion. The
gentlemen who administer these funds may be the most honest gentlemen in the City of London, but I do not see why this House should entrust them with the credit of this country. We are the people who in the last resort have to determine what money or money's worth or what value shall be given to individual concerns. It is very difficult indeed to defend the granting of public credit to private companies in any circumstances. I personally would have voted against this in the very beginning, but for the exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves. But I do think that if the Government to-night refuse to grant us this Policy Committee they will be saying to the British public that only a set of experts—who may be themselves financially interested in a concern directly or indirectly—should he the only people to say to whom these credits are to be granted. For those reasons I very much hope that we are going to get a Policy Committee.
But there is another reason. I do not think that everybody who comes before this body gets fair treatment. I think the small fry would not get fair treat-merit. The people who run this think help should only be given to the big sort of people that run the big businesses, else long ago very much more credit facilities would have been given to people who wished to do trade with Russia. I cannot for the life of me see why long ago very much more business should not have been done with Russia were it not for the fact that the gentlemen who control these credits are gentlemen who are very largely in opposition to the form of government in Russia. That is another reason why I think a Committee of ordinary, common or garden people like myself and some of my friends here should be on a Policy Committee. But the real reason why I got up was to emphasise the fact that the great financiers of the City of London, the great business men of the City of London, the great merchants of this country, have confessed the utter breakdown and failure of private enterprise, and they come here to ask the British Government to take up their private enterprise by these trade facilities, and, to this extent, Socialism limited. As I said at the beginning, I want Socialism unlimited, and as you are doing it in
this half-and-half fashion I want you to be watched, so that if your Socialistic operations fail you shall not say it is due to the principles of Socialism, when some of us who are watching over what you are doing will be able to prove the true reason you fail when you do fail.

Mr. MACLEAN: I want the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is in charge of the Bill, to consider the appointment of the Policy Committee as set out in the Amendment that we are at present discussing. If he and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, who is sitting next to him, will remember that the Governments of the past as well as the present Government have guaranteed a sum probably amounting to £55,000,000, and that in this Bill there is being asked an extension by £5,000,000 as well as the extending of the power of the Act for another 12 months. I want to ask both those hon. Gentlemen whether, in regard: to any of that large sum of money, the Government have had to come in to make good any of the sums they have guaranteed, either in the way of interest or principal? Many firms in this country, particularly shipbuilding firms, have received a guarantee of the principal and also of the interest that they required in obtaining backing to get ships built in some shipbuilding yard, or to enable them to carry out some particular scheme. I have looked over the figures carefully. I have looked at the list of firms to whom guarantees have been given and I cannot see in any of the lists that any of these firms defaulted or that this Government have had to come to the rescue to make good either the principal or the interest that they have guaranteed to any particular firm. Consequently, I think it would be greatly in the interests of this House if either of the hon. Gentlemen who may reply to the Debate would indicate to the Committee whether my impressions are correct or are wrong. If my impression of what has happened is correct, then I submit that the Trade Facilities Acts that have been pased in the past Sessions of Parliament as well as the present Trade Facilities Act we are now extending, have not in any way imposed on any of the Governments that have been ruling whilst those Acts have been in operation, any financial expenditure because of the defaulting of any of these firms.
I should hope that any sums that we are now guaranteeing and any sums that are likely to be guaranteed will have at least a prospect of being met by those to whom the guarantees are given. That brings me to the point of this committee. Most of these guarantees that have been already issued have been guarantees for work along lines that have in the past been carried out by various firms. Those firms, when they have received orders, and have found they have not either sufficient finances to carry them through themselves or sufficient funds in the bank, or cannot raise them from private sources, have come to the Government or rather the Advisory Committee. That is the first point. The firm itself must have had an offer of work before it comes Lo the Advisory Committee in order to obtain a Government guarantee under the Trade. Facilities Act; in other words, the promotion of a scheme of work must have taken place somewhere in ordinary private enterprise and in ordinary private commercialism. The Amendment now before us is an Amendment which seeks to set up a policy committee—a committee that shall be entirely different from the Advisory Committee which is presently operating and which has only the power to recommend to the Government schemes which this Advisory Committee consider would be safe for the Government to guarantee.
We consider that the time has passed for that sort of thing alone. Good enough as it has been, and good enough as it still is for schemes that come before them from commercial firms, it has now become necessary that the Government should set up another Committee having the power to promote schemes—the power, in the words of this Amendment, to consider national requirements and the promotion of suitable schemes in connection with national requirements. I submit that a Committee of this character would go a very long way in considering the national requirements for coping with the great mass of unemployment with which we are faced at the present time—in considering schemes of work which would employ in productive enterprise many of those who are at present unemployed, and not, as in many cases at the present time, in enterprises that cannot be said to be productive or
calculated to extend, or even continue, the old skill which these people might have in the trades in which they were trained. The establishment of a Committee of this character, which would go into schemes of national requirements, carefully estimate the cost, and consider the class of labour that is at hand waiting to be employed and capable of being employed upon these schemes, would be doing a much greater work and would be more profitable to the entire community, than simply continuing this scheme of merely advisory committees.
The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will remember that last year there was an Amendment down to this very same Bill, with which he and other Members were associated. That Amendment was at first much wider than it was when it ultimately appeared on the Paper, and, as a result of limiting the Amendment, after some negotiations that we had with him, it was possible to give a great deal of work to people who were at that time unemployed. I want to compliment the hon. Gentleman now, and to say that, as a result of the limitation of the scope of that Amendment, we were able in Govan to take fully 2,000 people off the exchanges and find them employment in the dockyards there. That follows along the lines of the suggestion which has been made from these benches. We hear a great deal about ships going abroad, and I should imagine that one of the things which this suggested Committee would be able to do would be to promote schemes of employment, to go into certain circumstances that force firms to-day to place their orders abroad, to go into the facts of the whole situation, and to find out whether there is any truth in the statement that other British firms are supplying these foreign competitors of home shipbuilding firms with iron and steel plates for the building of their ships at 30s. a ton less than the price at which they are selling them to the British shipbuilder. All the costs of transport, shipping freights, and all the rest, have to be paid in taking those goods abroad, whereas here at home we have our own shipbuilding companies asked to pay 30s. a ton more for plates manufactured in this country than the foreigner who is competing with us.
I submit that that is the very reverse of patriotism. We on these benches have levelled at us the accusation, which has
been rebutted to-night, that we love every country but our own, but let me say quite frankly that the commercial capitalist class of this country love anybody's money, whether it comes from Germany or Timbuctoo or anywhere else, so long as they can get more than they can in this country. We on this side are much more concerned with the uplifting of trade than hon. Members opposite. To us it means bringing work into the constituencies which we, in the main, represent. I submit that it is not sufficient merely to have this Advisory Committee; we want something more than that. This Trade Facilities Bill has been coming up annually until it has become perennial. It is brought forward every year to be continued for another year, while hon. Members opposite know in their hearts that when next year comes they will bring forward another Bill. We need to get down to the heart of the matter and see if we cannot promote schemes that will enable us to give employment to the people, instead of merely guaranteeing things when they come along.
Big firms are getting their schemes considered and passed, but little firms are not. I know of a firm in Glasgow that had a very fine alternative system of house-building, and they came along and asked for some guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act. They were refused, and on what ground? They were told that they must prove that the machinery they were operating, or wanting to operate, would be successful. They had bought the machinery in America—it was an American scheme—and it had been operating in America; but they were told that, unless they could show that that machinery, which had been successful in turning out what they said it would turn out in America, would be equally successful in this country, nothing could be done. And yet the cry of the country and the cry of the Minister of Health is for more houses. Slurs have been cast on the building operatives on the ground that they are retarding house-building, when the Government themselves decline to give the necessary guarantees to firms of this kind, who can make effective contributions to house-building. I suggest that the Government should accept this Amendment. The hon. Member 'for Bow and Bromley has said
that this is a little bit of Socialism—not our Amendment, but the whole Bill itself. It is an admission on the part of the Government, as well as on the part of the employers of this country, that the capitalist system has broken down and cannot be maintained without the aid of the credit of the country. Whose credit is it? Who provides the credit? It is provided by the population of this country, the community of this country; and if the community is providing the credit, if the industry, ingenuity and ability of the community are all being called upon to stand behind the schemes that are presently being guaranteed, why should not the community share in some degree in the results of those schemes? It is because we want to see the community sharing to some extent in the schemes that are undertaken, that we desire that this Amendment should be accepted by the Government and that this Committee should be set up. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that he can very well accept this without in any way lowering the dignity of the Government or making it appear to any of their die-hard back-bench Members, who are anti-Socialistic, that they are submitting to the Red Flag.

Mr. LANSBURY: They are.

Mr. MACLEAN: They are doing it in an unconscious manner.

Mr. ATKINSON: Do not quarrel.

Mr. MACLEAN: We are not quarrelling; we are a happy band of brothers after the Prime Minister's speech last Friday. I am asking the Government to accept this Amendment in the spirit in which it is moved. They are not doing sufficient for us by a mere advisory committee; we want a committee to promote schemes and go into the requirements of the nation. The composition of that committee is not set down here, and we are perfectly open in regard to it, but I would suggest that some members of it should come from this side of the House or from those whom we represent—that it should be composed of men who not only have direct knowledge of their trade by working at it with their hands, but also a directing interest in the trade from working as foremen, managers, and inspectors in the shipbuilding and other industries. If those people are taken
into the committee, you will be getting the best advice that can be possibly given from the workers' point of view, while on the other side of the committee you can have the best advice from the directors' or the employers' point of view. A committee of that kind, which would get down into the roots and possibilities of the whole question, would be a power for good, and would do something to bring this country, not only into the position which it occupied in trade before the War, but into a position ahead of any nation in the world, not merely as regards output in production, but as regards what is a great deal more to me namely, a much better nation as regards better housing, better living, and more comfortable citizens.

Mr. THURTLE: I should like to say a word in support of this modest contribution from our side towards the solution of the unemployment problem. I am sure hon. Members opposite will realise that this proposal of ours is going to fill a long-felt want. There are very many departments connected with the Government, but it happens not to be the function of any one of them to devise useful means of providing work for those who are unemployed. We found last year, in particular, that the Ministry of Labour, which might be expected to think out and devise such schemes, has not had that function put upon it, and, so far as it is possible to discover, no other Government Department has the obligation of devising schemes for providing work for those who are unemployed. Some kind of co-ordinating committee is needed which will devise useful schemes for providing work. So far, that committee does not exist, and the purpose of this Amendment is to provide it. As the Amendment states, it is to consider national requirements, and I take it that if we had a really representative committee of this kind its business would be to take a serious survey of national requirements, and to devise ways and means of meeting those requirements which would provide work for large numbers of the unemployed.
If I may give an illustration I would direct attention to the need that there is for greater production of foodstuffs. We find that our home produced food supplies are a diminishing quantity.
Those who survey the present national position will agree with me that it is imperative, if this country is to maintain its present population, that efforts should be directed towards the development of our agricultural industry. We already find that our exports are somewhat on the decline. Unless we can recover the great markets which we have lost, or discover new ones, we are not likely to be able, in the years to come, to support anything like our present population as a manufacturing country, and therefore we ought to be considering seriously the question of great schemes for the development of uncultivated land. We have the land and we have the labour for the purpose of cultivating it. My hon. Friend yesterday drew attention to the very large number of able-bodied single young men who were becoming demoralised and unworthy citizens because they could not get useful employment. Having the need for your food supplies, having your uncultivated land, and having your unemployed men, surely you have there the three factors which make it imperative, if you are looking ahead to the future, that you should devise schemes for bringing the land in touch with the unemployed and producing the foodstuffs.
There is another great question which this advisory committee could very properly consider. I admit this is all looking ahead, but surely it is the business of Governments to look ahead. I fear politicians generally live too much in the present. It would be far better for the welfare of the country if they would look ahead a great deal more than they do. I am thinking now of the great question of the electricity supply of the country. It is common ground, I believe, that in years to come electricity is going to be a great national need and is going to be used on a much more comprehensive scale than at present. If we had an advisory committee of this character, with the assistance of Members on this side of the House, I am certain it would make it one of its first jobs to consider the whole question of electricity in all its great national aspects, the laying down of great generating stations and transmission cables throughout the country, and if such a scheme as that were devised and it received assistance under the Trades Facilities Act, it would be conferring a great benefit on the people and
would at the same time be providing very useful productive work for men at present unemployed. We on this side of the House, I think, have a good title to be represented on such a committee. I do not wish to cast the least reflection upon the integrity and. good faith of hon. Members opposite, but it is natural that on such a committee as this, if you have people who have large interests themselves and have intimate connection with big finance, in considering applications under the Trade Facilities Act they are apt to take a rather partial point of view. We on this side, happily, are not under any such handicap. We have little money ourselves, and the people we are connected with are not connected with high finance, and therefore we should be able to bring to the committee a perfectly impartial and unbiassed judgment. I am certain that would be a beneficial element in the consideration of any projects which might be brought before us.
There is also this to be said. Hon. Members opposite have great imagination, but it is imagination of a peculiar character in connection with the planning of schemes. Their imagination never seems to work properly unless it has the stimulus of great dividends in prospect. Under the Trade Facilities Act we have financed a project in the Sudan. It is a tremendous project into which many millions of public money have been poured. If I might put it in rather Biblical language, we have cast the public bread upon the Nile waters, and hon. Members opposite hope it will return to them after many days. If there are Members opposite who, under the stimulus of the prospect of big dividends, are able to devise schemes of this sort, think it is desirable that we on this side, who are not animated by any desire to obtain large dividends either for ourselves or our friends, but solely by a desire to promote the national interest and to promote work for the unemployed, should have the opportunity of giving our advice and our knowledge to such an advisory committee with a view to devising schemes which would benefit the nation as a whole, and would benefit the unemployed and would redound in the long run to the prosperity and the well-being of the country as a whole. For these reasons, because I believe we have a serious and a very helpful contribution to
make to this problem of unemployment in connection with this advisory committee, I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of the unemployed and of the country as a whole, will see his way to accept it.

Mr. GUINNESS: I have already once spoken to this Amendment, but I think it is only courteous to hon. Members opposite to deal with the further points which have been brought forward to-day. We have had a Debate in which functions have been proposed to this Committee which supporters of the Amendment wish to see; set up, which we consider to be absolutely unsuitable for any body acting in connection with our present trade-facilities machinery. The hon. Member for Newcastle East (Mr. Connolly) made a very interesting speech, which might have come from an extreme Protectionist. He argued that in view of the serious plight of the shipbuilding industry we ought to have protection against bounty-fed competition. I am not going to discuss his proposals. I do not think they really are in very close connection with this Bill, because, after all, that problem comes much more within the scope of the machinery for the safeguarding of industry. The hon. Member went on to suggest that the advisory committee, in connection with the Trade Facilities Bill, should be empowered to discuss the principles of valuation.
It is quite remote from the work of trade facilities that the principles of assessment should be discussed by any committee charged with its administration. Then he suggested that the committee was necessary because at present one shipyard did not know the methods of control and the costings which were going on in a neighbouring shipyard, and I gathered that he founded on that fact the argument that we should control the shipbuilding industry through some new form of trade facilities machinery, though I see very little connection with trade facilities in the proposal that we should be able to call for facts and figures and details of management so as to order the methods which are pursued in these competing firms.
Then the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) suggested that it was necessary to control export prices. That is very remote from the machinery of
the Trade Facilities Bill. The problem of the control of export prices is already being explored by Sir Arthur Balfour's Committee, a Board of Trade inquiry on general production and costs as compared with foreign costs, and it would merely be duplicating the work of this Committee if, in response to this Amendment, we set up another body charged with the same work. But really what was no doubt in the hon. Member's mind was this very alarming case of the ships ordered by Messrs. Furness, Withy from a German yard. He suggested that the loss of that contract was due to the fact that the German yards were obtaining British steel at prices lower than those quoted for home consumption. I have no information as to that at all. But if we are to have foreign trade at all, and to keep going the steel industry, we can only hope to carry it on at competitive prices with the foreign producer in his own market. But apart from general considerations, really the 30s. difference which the hon. Member alleges does not explain the loss of this contract, because the difference in price between the German and the British yard was not really 30s. a ton on steel, but a much larger amount. I do not know what it would work out to on the raw material, but it worked out to £6 a ton on the ship. An hon. Member opposite asked what was the total price that had been quoted by British yards. I understand that the lowest price that can be offered in this country was £1,150,000, whereas the German price was £850,000. Hon. Members will, therefore, see that the Trade Facilities scheme was not in any way capable of dealing with this big difference. Messrs. Furness, Withy & Company, very patriotically, offered to give an extra £50,000 in order to keep the work in this country, but even so it left a gap of £250,000 between the German price and the British price, with the £50,000 bonus thrown in.

Mr. STEPHEN: Why was that?

Mr. GUINNESS: I cannot tell the hon. Member.

Mr. CONNOLLY: If the difference was only £250,000, it could not be £6 per ton on a 10,000 ton ship.

Mr. GUINNESS: There were five ships at £60,000 per ship, and each ship was of 10,000 tons.

Mr. CONNOLLY: That is £300,000.

Mr. GUINNESS: I believe the hon. Member will find that the figures fit in with the figures which he himself gave. The real point of the matter in connection with trade facilities is that the advantage which a guarantee gives, even on a loan of £1,000,000 is only a matter of tens of thousands of pounds. The greater the company the less is the advantage which a trade facilities guarantee can give. Messrs. Furness, Withy and Company are a very strong organisation, and to them a trade facilities guarantee means very little. A sum of £250,000 is far more than a trade facilities guarantee could mean, even to the rottenest company in the country.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) and other hon. Members suggested that the trade facilities machinery should deal adequately with the necessity for large schemes of electricity production. A great deal has been done in that respect, but the larger schemes which are now under consideration are much more suitable for the Electricity Commissioners. These proposals involve a policy far beyond the scope of private companies, and hon. Members opposite would be the first to say they are quite unsuitable for private enterprise. They are quite impossible for the Government as a whole to deal with in any piecemeal development under the trade facilities machine.

Mr. THURTLE: This Amendment provides that schemes may he dealt with by the State and not by private companies. It refers to national requirements, and the promotion of suitable schemes in connection therewith, and it does not imply, necessarily, that such schemes must be carried out by private enterprise.

Mr. GUINNESS: The whole machinery of trade facilities works through private companies, and we are not prepared to transform the machine in the way suggested. The schemes mentioned by hon. Members opposite would be entirely outside the scope of the trade facilities scheme. The Advisory Committee, with all the encyclopædic activities which hon. Members opposite propose to give it, would not be anything like as suitable for dealing with a technical matter such
as the bulk supply of electricity as would the highly expert Electricity Commissioners, who are engaged in the examination of this particular problem. Hon. Members opposite have suggested that we ought to allow this Committee to deal with the home production of food. If the Debate went on long enough, I suppose they would suggest that we should transfer to this Committee the whole of the responsibility of government, because they have taken one Department after another—the Board of Trade, the Board of Agriculture, and so on—and have suggested that their responsibilities and the responsibilities of the Government in deciding their policy should be handed over to a Committee which hon. Members opposite have, quite frankly, said should consist very largely of members of a party which is not responsible for the government of the country at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: No!] I do not want to misrepresent what has been said, but several hon. Members opposite have said that members of the Committee must come from the party opposite. I think the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) said so.

Mr. BUCHANAN: He is an extremist.

Mr. GUINNESS: It is a little difficult for me to follow the cross-currents of opinion on the other side. I am within the recollection of the Committee when I say that it was the argument that hon. Members oppose were not concerned with finance and have very little finance at their disposal, and that, therefore, they would set on one side all these financial considerations—

Mr. LANSBURY: We would set aside the financiers, not the considerations.

Mr. GUINNESS: Hon. Members opposite would deal with it from points of view entirely unrelated to the financial prospects of the proposal under review. We believe that the present Trade Facilities Committee is the most efficient body that could be entrusted 'with the taking of a long view of the needs of industry, and the opportunities of finding further employment by the provision of work. The expert machinery of the Government is at their disposal. They are in touch with the Board of Trade as to the industrial conditions of the country, and they are in touch with the
Ministry of Labour and through them with the evidence of the Employment Exchanges as to the needs for employment in any particular area. The proposals brought forward by hon. Members opposite really are to usurp the functions of the Cabinet and of the Government of the day in controlling policy.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who are the members of the Committee?

Mr. GUINNESS: Sir William Plender is the chairman, and the others are Mr. Morland and Mr. Whigham.

Mr. LANSBURY: All bankers.

Mr. GUINNESS: No, there is only one banker, a merchant banker. Sir William Plender is a very eminent accountant. These gentlemen consider applications, with expert opinion at their disposal, and also with advice at their disposal from Government Departments, as to the needs of employment. They keep in touch with outside experts, as in the case of the efforts they have made to get harbour schemes brought forward. They have negotiated with the Chamber of Shipping and have sent out letters to various harbour authorities, who have been recommended by the Chamber of Shipping as suitable for trade facilities, suggesting that they should put forward proposals for modernising and improving harbour facilities. It. is not the fault of the Committee that no scheme has been brought forward, but simply because the financial assistance is not sufficient to tempt the harbour authorities. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. T. Thomson) wished us to transform the functions of the trade facilities scheme. He wished to change the method now pursued by the Trade Facilities Committee.

Mr. HARRIS: I have dealt with that point.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) may have sugvsted the same thing. Perhaps he does not remember what was said by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West in the last Debate, after I had spoken. He made a strong attack on the present policy, saying that it was not enough to encourage and stimulate the bringing forward of schemes, but that we ought to go to the City and promote
schemes on Government responsibility. If the Government is to go to the City and press the City to take up schemes which are not, in the opinion of the City, justifiable on their commercial merits, it is quite certain that we shall have to pay far larger terms and that the cost of trade facilities operations will be very much increased.
The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) asked what losses we had made. Up to the present time, I am glad to say, the only loss which has reached its final stage is that of the Holbrook Brick and Tile Company, for about £4,000, but there are guarantees of £250,000 in danger at the present present time. I hope that negotiations which are going on will save us from having to bear the full loss. It would be very rash to prophesy that during the future years in which these guarantees will be in force no further losses will take place. I can only say, as I said on the last occasion, that as far as the objects of those who support this Amendment are to actively encourage schemes consistent with the policy of the present Government, we believe that their object is achieved by the present Trade Facilities Committee, but as far as the arguments which we have heard this afternoon and last week go beyond the scope of the existing trade facilities machinery and involve the widening of that system we are unable to accept them, and we must ask the Committee to reject them.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I had not intended to take any part in the discussion, because I should require further consideration of this matter before entering upon a path that is covered by so many political pitfalls; but after listening most carefully to the very exhaustive and generous reply just given by the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot refrain from saying that the Government have not grasped the significance of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman complained, almost in his last sentence, that the expert Committee which considers the pros and cons of applications for financial assistance that come before them, has done everything in its power to carry out its duties most faithfully. This Amendment does not suggest that the Committee has failed in its duty. We propose that the initiative should be
taken out of the hands of the private profit-seeker, and placed in the hands of a Committee representing the nation as a whole. I cannot understand why the Government does not accept this Amendment.
I had not the pleasure of listening to the Prime Minister's speech the other day, but I read it, and I had the honour of listening to the speech delivered last night by the Minister of Labour. The spirit of both those speeches was to consider this problem of employment and unemployment from the point of view of the nation and not from the point of view of individuals or sections
8.0 P.M.
I thoroughly agree with the sentiments behind these speeches, and for years I have on my own responsibility pointed out that if the nation were to be saved in the crisis which is now approaching that can only be done on the basis of a national organisation of industry and trade. Here is the first response to the appeals that have been made to us from the other side of the House. The Mover of this Amendment said: "Do not rely on the sectional interests of the people who bring forward schemes. Do not wait until someone says that he sees a personal profit in a transaction before you consider whether or not it is in the national interest, but place the responsibility on the shoulders of a group representing the nation to consider this problem as a whole and to advise the Committee, the Government and the nation as to the steps to be taken."
The first thing that is asked is that the committee should have as its primary function the consideration of national requirements. Surely it is not going to be argued from the other side that any group or any individual who brings forward a scheme to this Trade Facilities Committee to-day has given any consideration to national requirements. From the very nature of their business they can give consideration only to sectional requirements, to the requirements of the shareholders to whom they are responsible in the case of a limited company, or to their own personal requirements when the scheme is brought forward by an individual and not by a company. The primary purpose of the Trade Facilities machinery is not to help individual traders, nor is it to help particular com-
panies or sections or groups of traders. The primary purpose is to deal with the problem of unemployment. It is only in so far as assisting capitalists to proceed with schemes contributes to the alleviation of our national difficulties that we use our Trade Facilities machinery for the purpose of assisting private manufacturers or traders.
We have lived for generations in this country relying as a nation on the chance results of free competition among the private profit seekers of the country. The Conservative Government have been appealing to us to get away from that as our basis of dealing with the matter, and to take the view that the trade of a nation is much too vital a matter for the nation to allow it to remain in the hands of people who cannot look at it from a national point of view. Here is a response from the other side of the House. Here is a proposal to set up a Committee not to supersede the present Committee, but to take the first step in a national stocktaking of our national requirements. Surely this is a proposal to which any people, looking at the matter from a business point of view, must give sympathetic consideration, and so I rise not for the purpose of going at any length into this, but to try to impress on the Government that there is something here which is in striking harmony with the appeals which they have made to the nation within the past three or four days, and to ask them to give continued consideration to this matter and to postpone this discussion until another evening in order that they may consider whether it is not in harmony with the policy of the Trades Facilities machinery to accept the Amendment and act on the suggestion contained in the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: The statement just made by the Minister in charge proves what has been argued from these benches. If I understood him aright he said that there was £250,000 in the balance, and that you are in difficulties to that amount. That means that what we on this side are asking for is absolutely necessary, because it is evident that you are in difficulties. You have never come forward honestly and said that whatever the industry is you call in certain experts. You have never condescended to answer the questions put from these benches. To me this
Committee seems to be a most incapable Committee. I am dealing with it from an industrial point of view. Has any committee dealt with the national industries since the War stopped If you had attended to these industries it would have made you more fitted to have competed with the improvements which have been made in the German shipyards, but not a penny of Trade Facilities money has been given to prevent the waste in industries concerned with the production of ships. Why are we consuming on an average 36 cwt. more of coal in producing a ton of steel than Germany does? Have the Trade Facilities Committee ever looked into this apart from the pawnbrokers' point of view? Not once. I have challenged you before on this and you do not seem able or willing to give an answer, just as you refuse to say when you give a £ of credit whether you are getting a £ of real stocks or a quarter of a million of bogus stocks.
What may be called the failure of trade facilities is not a failure at all, but only shows that the men in charge have not any capacity to deal with the industrial side of things. I will sit down now if there is any promise to give me an answer to the statements which I have made. I have challenged you five times, but have never had any reply. I repeat the challenge now, and it will riot be accepted. In reference to the ships which are to be built in another country, did your Committee deal with the question as to the difference in the price of steel? Have they dealt with the statement of Mr. Holt, a big shipowner, at the launching of a ship in Liverpool—this is not a new statement—as to the price at which steel plates were being sold? Has the Committee sifted that information? Has the Committee sifted the statement of Mr. John Hill of the Boilermakers' Association confirming the statement made by Mr. Holt? They have never gone into any of these things. Here to-day the great boasted British nation is being knocked out by those whom we used to call the Jerrys and with whom we were never to shake hands.
Come to the basis of your shipbuilding, which is coal. What have you done? You are still wasting half of the coal which you are burning. You are not using it, and yet you want to claim to compete with other countries in which
intelligence is directed to all these things. Take an average boiler; 48 per cent. of the coal which it consumes is wasted, and yet you claim to be efficient and you want to build a wall of protection around this inefficiency. No matter how high you build the barriers of protection, you will not produce efficiency. You can only do that by the application of science. What is most aggravating is that we have thousands of engineers, equalled in skill by none others in the world, and yet because of this damnable capitalist

system, which says, "You will be allowed to go on with your industry only on our terms," by which a chemist is asked to make rotten beef look fresh or do something to increase the profit on sausages by a ½d. per lb., we are left behind. If the Committee had been a real Committee none of these things which have been referred to to-night would have happened.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided; Ayes, 110; Noes, 220.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[8.13 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barnes, A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T, I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kelly, W. T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E. Taylor, R. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Charleton, H. C.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Close, W. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Connolly, M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
March, S.
Vlant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maxton, James
Warne, G. H.


Day, Colonel Harry
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Duncan, C.
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Wignall, James


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C H. (Sheffield, Attercliffs)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Meothyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardle, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Harris, Percy A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. John Robertson and Mr. T.


Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John
Griffiths.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Clayton, G. C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Brass, Captain W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Albery, Irving James
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cope, Major William


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cooper, J. B.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Craik Rt. Hon. Sir Herry


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crook. C. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bullock, Captain M.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burman, J. B.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Beamish, Captain T. P. H
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Berry, Sir George
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)


Bethell, A.
Campbell, E. T.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Dawson, Sir Philip


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Chapman, Sir S.
Dixey, A. C.


Blundell, F. N.
Christie, J. A.
Drewe, C.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Edmondson, Major A. J
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Elveden, Viscount
Kenyon, Barnet
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


England, Colonel A.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Knox, Sir Alfred
Salmon, Major I.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fenby, T. D.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Flelden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sandon, Lord


Finburgh, S.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Savery, S. S.


Fleming, D. P.
Loder, J. de V,
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Ford, P. J.
Looker, Herbert William
Shepperson, E. W.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Forrest, W.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Galbraith, J. F.
Lumley, L. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Gates, Percy
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gee, Captain R.
Macdonald R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Goff, Sir Park
MacIntyre, Ian
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Major A.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macmillian, Caption H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grentell, Edward C. (City of London)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macquisten, F. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Makins, Brigadler-General E.
Thomson, Sir W. M. Mitchell (Croydon, S.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tinne, J. A.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Margesson, Caption D.
Titchfiend, Major the Marquess of


Harland, A.
Meller, R. J.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Waddington, R.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Hawke, John Anthony
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut, Col. J. T. C.
Warner, Brlgadier-General W. W.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Murchison, C. K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Neville, R. J.
Watts, Dr. T.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wells, S R.


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Herbert, S. (York. N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Nuttall, Ellis
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Hilton, Cecil
Oakley, T.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Perring, William George
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Homan, C. W. J.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Wornersley, W. J.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Philipson, Mabel
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pilcher, G.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Radford, E. A.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Raino, W.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsden, E.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Huntingfield, Lord
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Rice, Sir Frederick



Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Surly, Ch'ts'y)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.

It being after a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

BLACKMAIL.

Captain ARTHUR HOPE: I beg to move,
That, having regard to the recent increase in blackmailing crimes, to which attention has been drawn by several of His Majesty's Judges. and seeing that only a comparatively small proportion of blackmailers are brought to justice and punished by reason of the unwillingness of the victim to prosecute, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that legislation should be introduced as soon as possible to enable all such cases to be tried in camera.
In moving this Resolution I must ask for that indulgence which is always accorded to a Member on making his first speech. I feel that the Resolution, at. any rate in its spirit and its principle, is in accordance with the wishes of all parties in the House, although all hon. Members may not agree with the actual wording of the Resolution. There is undoubtedly a very great and grave increase in the crime of blackmail in this country. It has been on the increase since the War, and I think it is very largely due to the fact that, owing to conditions which have arisen since the War, there are very many men and women who have to live by their wits, and to anybody of an unprincipled turn of mind there is no easier way of living by your wits alone than by becom-
ing a professional blackmailer. There are various kinds of blackmail, but you can divide them roughly into two classes. There are those who blackmail their victims because they have a hold over them, owing to some fault or indiscretion or even some crime which the victim has committed in the past. There is the class where the victim has committed no fault or crime whatever, but owing to the fact that his name may appear in the Press or be stated in the Law Courts he is frightened to bring things forward. The system of the blackmailer is the same in both cases. He knows that in 99 cases out of 100, a victim will use any means to avoid appearing in public. They will avoid publicity to the best of their ability, and will go so far as to spend their last penny rather than allow their names to appear in the public Press or become known in the Law Courts of this country. That is what encourages the blackmailer. He knows that whether he has a good case or not, his victim will use every means to avoid the case being made public. Mr. Justice McCardie in a judgment delivered last April made the following comment:
Civilisation has many cancers, but in my view one of the worst of these cancers is the offence of blackmail. It is a most cruel, callous and cowardly offence. The result of this blackmail is to inflict slow death on the victim, the object being to extract from his terror as much, or even more than he can possibly afford. In my view this offence is very much on the increase. The time has come when, even if men are convicted for the first time, the Judge should inflict severe punishment. The parks and streets must be made safe and blackmail must be stamped out, and if the victims come forward it will be stamped out.
That is the point of my argument. The victims will not come forward because they fear exposure. Let us take the case of a member of the medical profession who is blackmailed. He may bring the case forward, he may be honourably acquitted of the charge made against him, and ho may leave. the Court without a stain on his character, but his name has appeared in the Press, he has had to give evidence, and he has had an immense amount of mud slung at him by his accuser. He goes back to practice. Now, if any one of us proposes to employ a doctor to attend to a wife or daughter it is our desire to employ a person whose integrity is unchallengable. Three or
four years may have passed, and we may say, "We will ask Dr.—to come in.
Dr.—may have been the unfortunate victim of the blackmailing case of three or four years previously, and when his name is mentioned, somebody will say, "Oh, he was mixed up in a case three years ago. I cannot remember what it was all about, but it was rather unsavoury." So that, although Dr.— was absoultely guiltless, at the same time the mud has stuck. If there is the slightest suspicion against an unfortunate doctor we know perfectly well that people will avoid him and go to a doctor whose name has never been mentioned in any such connection and has never in any way been tarnished.
This is not an isolated instance. Such instances occur every day. Professional men like doctors and clergymen are to a large extent the worst victims, and they use every possible means to avoid these cases being brought to the public eye. There is another form of blackmail, unconnected with professional men, due to the natural desire of any married man, for instance, to prevent any indiscretion of his former life reaching the ears of his wife or family. A case was tried last year in which a gardener employed in Wales had been systematically blackmailed for 18 months by a gipsy man who made an accusation against him of misconduct with his—the gipsy's—wife. The unfortunate man was absolutely guiltless and was honourably acquitted at the trial, but he was terrified that even the report of an indiscretion which had not actually taken place should come to the ears of his wife and family. He was an elderly man; he had saved a good deal of money throughout his life, but he was bled white by this gipsy, and every penny of his savings, amounting to £600 or £700, had gone to pay off the blackmailer. I think he had nothing at all left when, in sheer desperation, he put the matter into the hands of the police. The blackmailer received a, heavy sentence, and the man was told that if he had taken that course before, everything would have been all right. We know that people ought to come forward and prosecute in such cases, but as I say, people will not do so, because of the fear of publicity, and the object of my Resolution is that these cases of blackmail should
be tried in camera, and when a man comes forward to confront his accuser in Court, the case should not appear in the public Press.
I should like to say that in the great majority of cases the public Press behave extremely well on this subject and do not publish names more than is absolutely necessary. At the same time there is a great deal of publicity which it is desired to avoid. In the event of a false charge of blackmail being made against a man, who is acquitted of it, then by all means the circumstances should be published in the Press after the hearing. I do not wish to go the whole hog, and to say that the Press should never publish names at all, because you would then very often find unscrupulous men accusing other people of: blackmail which they had never committed. I suggest that all these cases should be tried at first in camera, and the names not published unless in the considered opinion of the presiding Judge it was a case in which the names should appear. We do not wish to protect the blackmailer, who is at the present moment protected by the fear of publicity on the part of the unfortunate men and women of all classes who are being systematically blackmailed throughout the country to-day.
People may say that this is not a subject of sufficient importance to warrant this Resolution, but I have heard of a great many cases among all classes of people where blackmail has been kept up for years. A case was tried a year or two ago in which the unfortunate victim of the blackmail had committed an offence. Month after month for 12 years he was blackmailed by two brothers, one of whom extracted from him £2,000, and the other £1,900. At the end of 12 years this man what had lived in a state of terror all that time came to the end of his tether, was reduced to a mental and physical wreck and finally went to the police. As a result these two brothers were tried and got 12 years penal servitude each, which they thoroughly deserved. Although that man had committed an offence or an indiscretion he should have been punished for it by the law of the land and not by two blackmailers. One can multiply such cases by hundreds, and they exist, as I say, in all classes of the community. I am not pleading on behalf of one class more than another.
Hon. Members know that such cases occur in all degrees of life. I ask that some alteration should be made in the law of this country, so that, if possible, these cases should be tried in camera, or, at any rate, that some amendment should be made so that a man can safely come forward and prosecute the man or woman who is blackmailing him. I feel confident that in that case the increased blackmail which is now going on will steadily decrease, and, if the Judges give good sentences, which I am sure they will do, in these cases, within a few years it will be realised by these blackmailing men and women that blackmail is no longer the profitable industry which it is at the present moment. I would urge on the Government, if I may, that some time they should introduce legislation to remove what is a very genuine grievance at the present moment among all classes of the community in this country.

Captain GEE: I beg to second the Motion.
In doing so, I think I shall be acting in accordance with the wishes of the House if I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Captain A Hope) on the very able way in which he has moved the Motion. I think we ought to congratulate him on the extraordinary courage that he has shown in moving this Motion in his maiden speech. I do not know whether or not my hon. and gallant Friend belongs to the legal profession. I do not. I have tried many times to get into it, but have failed at the examination each time, and so it is with a certain amount of diffidence that I rise to second the Motion, especially as we have no less a personage than the Home Secretary, a very distinguished member of the legal profession, sitting on the Front Bench waiting to pull us to pieces. No matter what political party the Members of this House represent, I believe the best of each party are out to do what they can to make the country better than it is. We may not agree with the methods which each party chooses, but still the idea is there to leave the country better when we leave it than it was when we came into it.
I am rather inclined to think that when this discussion ceases to-night, most of the things said can be summed up in the old French tag: Repeter sans cesse. It
will be a constant repetition of one argument after the other, and the more the same argument is repeated, the greater the force behind it, that there is need for a drastic reform in our law as regards blackmail. I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends from what I call the wrong side of the border are not here to-night, because, if my memory serves me aright, this word "blackmail" is one of the nasty things that has descended to us from the North country. We are informed that it was a tribute that was levied in money, cattle, or corn by the freebooters from the northern banks of the Tweed—that unruly, unholy tribe. But to-day we rather look upon blackmail as extortion of money and other things by means of a threat or a menace, and no matter how one argues about this particular point, whether from a moral or a legal standpoint—and I am quite aware that I am getting on somewhat dangerous ground when I talk about the legal aspect—I think we are all agreed that of all the crimes in existence to-day, the most despicable is the crime of blackmail. I am not quite sure whether I am in order, but I will risk it, being quite aware of the fact that if I do transgress, I shall very shortly be pulled up to order. If there is one thing which bears out the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover of the Motion that the law needs remedying in this respect, I think we find it in the case that has now been settled and is no longer sub judice. It is not a case of kicking a man when he is down, but of profiting by that man who is down in order that the country may he better, and purer, and cleaner by the fact that he is down, and has been put away for a term of years. We find in to-day's paper that for 20 years William Cooper, sentenced to-day at the Old Bailey, has been a menace to the police and a fear to the legal profession. The Director of Public Prosecutions for 20 years has sought again and again to get evidence in order to bring this man to justice. One could go on—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I think this is a case which is still subject to a possible appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and if that be so, the hon. and gallant Member cannot name the case. I think I know
the one he has in mind, and it would not be in order to refer to it until the time for lodging an appeal has elapsed.

Captain GEE: I thought I had rather cleverly dodged it. I have not been aware yet that there is going to be an appeal, but I will, of course, refrain from referring to the case any more.

Mr. R. MITCHELL: On a point of Order. If names are mentioned in this House, should not a surname be given as well as Christian names, because it happens in some cases that the middle Christian name of one man is the surname of another, and it would lead to great confusion if the full name were not given?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member referred to the case in such a way that there could be no confusion of identity.

Mr. MITCHELL: He used the words "William Cooper."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member was going very near the line, but he has now said he will not pursue the matter further.
Captain GEE: I have finished now, but if there are any others of those names, and if they are in the same category as the gentleman I have mentioned, the quicker they are put away the better it will be for England and for the youth of this country. There is another kind of blackmail that one is very often a victim of, and that is the blackmailing of candidates during Parliamentary elections. I sincerely trust that when this matter is being considered by the Home Secretary and his law officials, it will be made a. punishable offence for any organisation, whether it comes—I say this with all respect—from my political opponents, and, I hope, my personal friends on that side in the shape of trade unionists, or whether it comes from any body of industrial magnates on this side of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "It could not!"] I have had some, and so has every other candidate for Parliament. It is not swank. It is a plain, honest statement of truth. Every Member of this House having been a candidate for Parliament knows as well as I do that what I am stating is the plain, unvarnished truth, and I hope the Law Officers will recognise it, no matter from which side it comes, when people bring
propositions that unless you pledge yourself to this, that and the other, then they, with all their numbers on one side, or with all their wealth on the other, are going to use them to prevent you from being returned to this House. It is another form of blackmail, neither more nor less.
This is such a very important question, that one would like to strike a personal note. There is on the Front Bench a Cabinet Minister, who, I presume, will reply, and I sincerely hope will consult his legal advisers about this question when the case is closed. It so happens that that Cabinet Minister is my own representative in this House. I have a very great regard for him, and one cannot easily imagine the right hon. Gentleman mixed up with the shady side of night life in London, but there was a great writer, not so very long ago, who, in writing the life of a late very distinguished Member of this House, used this expression:
A conscience is a troublesome partner even to a Cabinet Minister.
A little later he said:
A Cabinet Minister, or a statesman, may look not far enough ahead, but he mast never make the mistake of looking too far a head.
In this ease, I hope the right hon. Gentle man will look far enough ahead, and see whether he, or any of his colleagues, or any of his successors on the Front Bench, may have an uneasy conscience and see how they will stand, when, perhaps, with most innocent intentions, they will spend, as many hon. Members of this House do, an innocent hour at a night club. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If an hour after this House rises is the only time that Members can find for recreation, why should they not go to a night club? The days of Puritanical tyranny have gone. But then the point comes in whether someone may not come along and threaten, unless a certain sum of money is paid, to publish the name of such and such a Member of this House, and there are Members on each side of the House who do attend night clubs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, then, I am sorry for them. When you come to professional Men, be. it a doctor, a lawyer or a dentist, what will they not pay rather than have their names dragged out and published? They will pay anything, and will go through the tortures of mental
hell rather than have their names dragged into the light of day.
There is one other point. Not so very long ago, in a certain town in the Midlands, there was a case of blackmail brought forward. A young man committed an indiscretion, and unscrupulous men and unscrupulous women found it out. They bled that man to the tune of £2,000, and ruined his business. The Judge or the Magistrate on the Bench in that case—if my memory serves me correctly, it was the Mayor of the town—appealed to the newspapers and to the reporters to publish no names. In one case the newspaper did publish the names, and the man was simply sent to Coventry, because he did a. public duty. Is it to be thought that in the next two or three years, until memory has faded, there will be another business man in that provincial city who will dare to bring a case of blackmail against anybody? No, because he will be afraid of the publicity. Therefore, I do hope that when my right hon. Friend consults with his legal advisers as to this question, he will make it, not voluntary, but obligatory upon the newspapers, when the Judge or the Magistrate in his wisdom decides that names shall be suppressed, and that it will be a punishable offence for anyone to go against such expressed wish. I hope we shall have a very interesting discussion, and that the result will be that, the law will be amended.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I join in the congratulations to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Resolution on his maiden speech. He had rather a difficult task to perform. The House to-night is dealing with a very abstruse problem; a very intricate task even for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to deal with. I must confess that there are two or three points in the Resolution which do not at all satisfy me, and I venture, without any knowledge of the law or the history of blackmail, to make a few observations on the Motion. I have not touched the issue at any angle except having seen the rather sordid side of it during my period of office. I venture to say that there are one or two words in this Resolution about which the House will have to be very, very careful before passing it finally. For illustration, the hon. and gallant Member who moved the
Resolution, and, I believe, the Seconder, intimated that there is an. increase in the crime of blackmail. I am not sure that anybody can prove that to be the case. It is all very well for a Judge to say that there is an increase, but it does not appear to me to be so from my reading of the reports of Commissioners of Police and the governors of our prisons. In fact, crime as a whole is decreasing in this country rather rapidly. I would be very sorry indeed to think that this new type of crime is on the increase. Nothing has been yet said to satisfy me that the crime of blackmail is actually increasing in this country. I should be very glad to secure some facts or definite information other than the mere declarations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke first not only that there is an increase, but that only a comparatively small proportion of blackmailers are brought to justice and punished.
The point of this Resolution has not, in fact, been stressed by either the Mover or the Seconder, because the whole point is this—that legislation should be introduced as soon as possible to enable all such cases to be tried in camera. That is the whole pivot upon which the Resolution revolves, and I could have wished that the Mover or Seconder, or both, had given us a little more information as to why all cases of blackmail should be tried in camera.
There is, I agree, nothing so detestable or despicable in the sphere of crime as that of blackmail. It plays upon the fear of the victim, a fear that comes from an allegation that he has been doing something that he generally avoids. In fact, the blackmailer will sometimes make a charge against his victim on those very acts that the victim never commits. That is the gravaman of the case against the blackmailer. There are, of course, several forms of blackmail, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I feel sure, will have had cases put before hint already, and will know how this sort of things works in actual practice. The law of libel, so far as I understand it—and we have got to deal with libel in a case like this—is that if any person publishes or threatens to publish any libel with intent to extort money, he is liable to be imprisoned with or without hard labour
for any term not exceeding three years. The law is therefore quite clear on the question of libel already. In fact, newspapers are liable to prosecution unless they behave as they should in dealing with reports of crimes alleged to have been committed. There are cases already recorded where newspapers have employed doubtful means to find out facts connected with cases of alleged crime. They have reported the work of amateur detectives, and the Court has punished those newspapers and their proprietors in consequence. But it is not so easy to get at the perpetrator of these journalistic operations, and it is not in order here to go further into this matter.
I wish the House and the Home Secretary, when this question of newspaper sensationalism comes forward would consider it carefully. There is a certain class of newspaper that stoops so low as to exploit the sordid history of crimes in order to make money and profit out of the morbid minds of the people. This, however. is only a small part of a. very much bigger issue, and I hope that the time will come when it will be clearly understood what shall be printed in newspapers and what shall not. I am one of those, however, who has tried to take both sides into account where the Press is concerned, and have considered whether the Press should be free or otherwise to publish certain reports. I am rather inclined to think that, on the whole, the Press ought to be free to publish what it likes. I am inclined to that view at the moment, but there may be cases of a special kind that ought to he dealt with in camera. The fault I find with this Resolution is that it is too general, too wide in its scope. There is something else to which I object—

Captain GEE: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think he is rather stressing the point too much, perhaps, that the particular effect of this Resolution is to enable all cases to be tried in camera. It is not that they shall he, but it is to enable them to be so heard. [HON. MEMBERS: "All cases."]

Mr. DAVIES: I do not think the hon. Gentleman in what he says disputes my point at all. Supposing you pass legislation to enable all such cases to be heard in camera, what would follow? If the
Judges decided that it was proper so to deal with such cases, all such cases would be dealt with in camera. There is no doubt about it. The point I desire to make in that connection is that a common case of blackmail is that of a woman who may have been seduced by the prodigal son of a rich man. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, that is a common case. Now, what some of us fear—
9.0 P.M.
I myself fear it—is that if a Resolution of this kind were carried and the Home Secretary were to adopt the point of view expressed in the Resolution and translated the Resolution into law, that such cases heard in camera would tend to shelter the rich to the disadvantage of the poor.

Captain A. HOPE: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the whole point of my Resolution is that the man who has been blackmailed may go forward from this moment without any fear that his name will appear, if it is left to the discretion of the Judge as to how the case shall be heard. The whole point of my Resolution, or I wish it to be, is that every man should be able to go forward without any fear at all that his name may be dragged through the mire without rhyme or reason, or any shred of evidence at all against him. It is to be open to the Judge, if he thinks that a case has been brought forward through malice or any other reason, to order the case to be published. What I Wished to express, what I would wish is, that every case should be tried in camera, unless the Judge decided that it should not be so heard.

Mr. DAVIES: But we are not called upon to vote on speeches like those of the Mover and Seconder; we are called upon to vote on the Resolution. I believe that the Mover of the Resolution is quite sincere, I think his desires are good and noble, but we are dealing with a Resolution which he has been good enough to submit to us, and on that Resolution I desire to pass one or two further comments. I spoke a moment or two ago of the situation that obtained at the moment so far as I understood it, in connection with newspaper reports of cases. I say that the whole pivot on which this Resolution turns is the question of having blackmail cases heard in camera. In the case of newspapers, those responsible for
publishing the accounts of the work of their amateur detectives in investigating crimes or alleged crimes, are already liable to be punished for contempt of court.
I am sure that the Home Secretary, when he comes to speak, will tell this House that he is being requested to undertake one of the most difficult problems when he is called upon to introduce legislation to deal with what is, as I have already termed it, a most detestable form of crime. I am not sure, therefore, how I shall cast my vote to-night. I will decide that when I have heard what the Home Secretary has to say, but I would ask the House again, before it passes this Resolution, to have regard to the, wording of the Motion and not merely to what has been said by the Mover and the Seconder. It ought to be very careful, if it decides that the Resolution shall be carried and put into effect, so that cases of this kind are held in camera, that it is not committing a new error by removing another. I would, of course, like to see many of the things which appear in our public press eliminated. After 50 years of free elementary education, all the sermons which have been preached, and the lectures that have been delivered from thousands of platforms, one would think that it would be absolutely impossible for our people to support those newspapers which give us such piffle from Sunday to Sunday. Strangely enough the worst stories of all appear in Sunday newspapers. This Resolution may not have very much effect, even though it be carried, but I hope the time may come, not by legislation, but through the common sense of our people, that the type of sensational journals that we get from week to week and Sunday to Sunday will be abhorred and that there will be no sale for them in the near future.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: The Motion which has been moved is one of great interest, but I agree with my hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary for Home Affairs (Mr. Rhys Davies) that it certainly does import that the question of whether or not a case should be heard in camera should be left to the discretion of the Judge. The word are:
enable all such cases to be tried in camera.
I can only conceive that that must mean that it is the Judge who will ultimately determine whether the case should be heard in camera or not, and I very greatly deprecate that. I have the greatest confidence in Judges, but they are human, though great. It may be that one Judge will take one view and another Judge another, and for the administration of the law in so important a matter as this the law itself should be clear and definite. It should not be left to the discretion of any of His Majesty's Judges, however great, to decide when a case came on whether it should be heard in camera or not.
No doubt blackmailing cases are not uncommon; that is beyond question, and through the newspapers one has become familiar with the great range they cover. It may be that they are concerned with financial reasons—some financial frauds. It may be that a newspaper—so I have heard, and no doubt it may be true—may say, "We will publish this about you or about your company unless you pay us so much." That is one class of case. Then you have cases in which a man may have been guilty of some vile offence. Cases vary infinitely. I have known of a case in which a publican was threatened with opposition to his licence unless he paid so much, because he was, so it was alleged, carrying on a betting business on his premises. The word "blackmail" may cover a vast number of cases; they may be financial or they may be personal.
Are you sure that if you do alter the law you are going to enable more convictions to be secured, or enable more prosecutions to be undertaken, or encourage them? I am by no means certain. I think it is inevitable that something will leak out, or it may leak out. It is quite true that you may not have the temporary and unenviable felicity of being in the newspapers for a week—we generally forget all about it in a fortnight—but it will be known, and it will be known by whom? By your friends; and to my mind that is the real thing with which we are concerned. We all know how little we know of human nature in the sense of personal acquaintance with people, and it is quite immaterial to people whether Smith or Jones has done this or that. They see it in the papers, but they do not know it; but to anybody knowing Smith or Jones
it is a totally different matter—that is where it is felt. In regard to financial matters, a man s financial status may be ruined, and it may be that in the existing state of the law there is a chance for people to extort money by stating that they will publish something of disadvantage to you, your business, your surroundings, or your life, and that is exceedingly unfortunate.
I think it was a little unkind of the right hon. Gentleman the late Under-Secretary for Home Affairs to suggest about women being seduced by rich men. May I point out to him the remedy? If wrong has been done, a child is born, and there is an affiliation summons, and that is surely publicity enough and protection enough. Nobody can call that blackmail. I am not laying down the law in regard to actual cases, hut I do not think it would be wrong for anyone to write to a man and say, "You have seduced me, and I am in the family way, and I ask you to make proper and right provision." I do not call that blackmailing, I think it is a woman's right, and if the man does not do it, then I say the woman has been kind to him, and so far from its being any menace or threat, I would say, "I advise you without hesitation to take affiliation proceedings." If he has done wrong and is a rich man, all I lament is that the law is not strong enough to enable her to have such provision as his riches can afford.
I cannot help thinking the Mover of this Motion has never put his thoughts into the form of a Bill. These wide Resolutions, in my submission, do not add very largely either to the progress of opinion or of the law. This is loose language, and we need to get down to concrete provisions and carefully examine them. That is the value of Committee work in this House, that we really do get something which is good law, even though it may be delayed for some years. Having said that, I am going humbly to announce my opinion in regard to this matter. It seems to me there is one great principle at stake. Is it more in the interests of the community that our legal proceedings should be published abroad, or that, for the benefit, and it may not be for the advantage, of particular individuals who have, I will not say sinned against the law, but sinned against that which we
think morally right they should be protected by closed Courts? I doubt it. I am in favour of publicity in these matters. I do not believe that you can add largely to the convictions, or to the prosecutions; and when I use the word conviction, I am assuming the guilt of the persons charged by reason of the prosecution.
There is the Robinson case, of which we have all heard. I never knew one of the parties, and I do not suppose I ever shall, and I do not want to, for it does not concern me. In that case, for example, how would this proposal have operated? That was a most notorious case which aroused more interest and was more widely published than almost any other case in my time. This was an action against a bank for money alleged to have been wrongfully paid out, and there you had the whole of the proceedings published, although the only person blackmailed was not induced to come forward to give evidence. You might obtain this security in the common criminal prosecution, but if anybody or any newspaper was told to publish it, in case it involved a criminal offence or a man's credit in his business, and the words spoken turned out to be a slander, nobody could prevent it being made the subject of a slander action.
For these reasons I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by adopting this Resolution. I think the overwhelming opinion is that the whole of our legal proceedings in this country should give the right to publish. One cannot agree with all the newspapers publish, but I do believe that the just carrying out of the law is best secured by publicity. It is not to be assumed that the Judges do not make mistakes. Let us assume that there had been a serious statement made in regard to a. person who was to come before a grand jury. Is it not far better that that fact should be known in order that the Judges may he controlled as well as other people.
I am opposed to this Resolution. I cannot help thinking that although I cannot support it there is a worse form of this evil existing at the present time, which is apparently encouraged by newspapers and by the public taste. Some unfortunate woman or a man is a litigant in some suit which interests public opinion, and they find themselves
pilloried in the newspapers by the publication of their photographs. In my judgment that is abominable. Hon. Members will recollect that I spoke of this practice in regard to the terrible case at Eastbourne, and I suggested that if possible proceedings should be taken. Even to-day you have the case of a poor woman in a case which is exciting considerable public interest; her photograph is published in all the papers, and I think that is a grave scandal. There is a feeling that a matter of this kind might be dealt with, but it is very doubtful whether it Would come within the powers of contempt of Court.
I think that, is blackmail of the worst kind, because you may have the case of a woman or a man who cannot get justice because the newspapers have in the first instance published a photograph. I know of an actual case of a very eminent King's Counsel—not myself—who was actually photographed and inserted in a newspaper under the title of "Mr. Hobbs." I have a very clear opinion that the best interests of the community will be served by the courage of its citizens, and I think it is very desirable that in our Law Courts all the proceedings should be open, and subject to good taste and discretion, all our Courts should be open to the Press.

Mr. R. MITCHELL: The complexity of this subject has been exemplified by the wide range covered by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Resolution and the hon. and gallant Member who seconded it. We started with a perfectly definite proposal that certain discretionary powers should be granted to certain Judges trying a certain class of case, and by the time we had reached the end of the speech of the Seconder we had before the House a proposition that a Magistrate sitting in Court trying any case should have the power to say to the Press, "You shall not publish or you may publish a report of these proceedings." I think it is very creditable to the wisdom of our ancestors that they laid down and maintained through so many years two great principles: first, the openness of all our Courts; and, secondly, the absolute freedom of the Press, subject, in the first place, to a power to hear in private that which was obviously contrary to public morals, and, in the second place, to retaining the right of any individual to
sue for damages any newspaper which transgressed the law of libel.
Having said that, if I am not going too far, I should like to welcome one expression which was used by the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded me when he expressed his regret that the Courts did not give to a seduced woman the right to claim on behalf of her child a measure of subsistence commensurate with the position and income of its father. I never can understand why it is that the legitimate son of a man in good circumstances can claim a mode of life proportionate to his father's wealth but that the illegitimate son of the same man is restricted, I understand, in England to some 10s. a week and in Scotland to 5s. a week. But I pass from that. This Motion is based upon premises to which I must demur. It states:
That, having regard to the recent increase in blackmailing crimes"—
There has been no suggestion or proof offered to this House that there is an increase in blackmailing crimes. What we are all aware of is, that there has been an increase in blackmailing cases brought before the Courts, and that increase in blackmailing cases seems to me to show a much more healthy and courageous spirit on the part of those who have been blackmailed rather than an increase on the part of those who have been blackmailing. Further, I demur entirely to the proposal that we should pass a law compelling judges to hear such cares in camera, unless there is, in their opinion, some special reason for hearing them in public. This is cur old friend "contracting in" or "contracting out." The Motion proposes that the Judges should have the right to "contract in" to the scheduled sphere according to their discretion. But, subsequently, the Mover put it even stronger and laid down that. "contracting out" should he allowed if the Judges thought it desirable. Apart from that, if I felt that the crime of blackmailing was to be cured or eliminated by a prohibition against holding such trials in public, I should still hesitate to support anything which I considered so fundamentally opposed to our laws. I believe, on the contrary, it would have the entirely opposite effect.
Blackmail is a crime whereby cowards hope to extort money from cowards. If a man against whom a blackmailer threatened action is, like Brutus, "Armed in honesty," he does not need to fear the threats of a blackmailer. If he should have a blackmailer operating against him and in his courage he brings the blackmailer before the Court, then his protection is the publicity given to the trial; for everybody knows that where a man is brought into Court at the charge of somebody else against whom some libel has been made the publication of the whole proceedings is the best possible protection for the man who has been blackmailed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Motion mentioned the case of a professional man. I happen to be a professional man. If by any chance some evil-minded person should attempt to blackmail me and I found it necessary to take action against him, how am I going to be affected by the present method and the method suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman? By the present method I go into Court, I give evidence, the man is found guilty and it is obvious that it becomes publicly known in all its details that the secret which he is supposed to be holding up against me does not exist. But if I go into Court and it is held in camera what is there to silence those whispering tongues that arc ever ready to say, Oh, yes, of course, the man was found guilty, but one never knows about these things. There has been no evidence brought to light." The most pernicious people in the world, even more injurious than slanderers, the whisperers, would find a ready victim in any man who felt compelled to take a blackmailer into Court unless the case he heard in public. There is, in a way, an added status given to the man who has gone through that process. I know there was for years in Glasgow a man who went about the streets stating publicly that he held a superior status to any man in Glasgow in that he was the only citizen of Glasgow who had been certified sane by three doctors, and, as far as he was concerned, there could be no possible doubt hut, as far as the rest of the citizens of Glasgow were concerned, they had no such certificate. How many times has it happened that a man against whom there has been blackmailing and who has taken action
and there have been in circulation whispers and reports, has come out of the case fortified by having taken his courage in both hands. You will never be able in this country to effect a good reform by a bad method. It is, to my mind, a very bad method to lay an obligation upon the Court to hear any kind of case in private, and it is a very injurious and reactionary step, I suggest, to set any curb on the liberty of the Press beyond the curb of the discretion and good taste of those who own it, and, still more, the discretion and good taste of those who write for it.

Mr. DIXEY: I must say for once I find myself in total disagreement with certain Friends of mine on this side of the House. As a lawyer I do feel that the principle of allowing publication to be given to all trials which take place in this country is an essential basis from which we cannot afford to depart. I must say I do not quite agree with what has been said by two or three hon. Members that these blackmailing cases are not increasing. I think most of the learned Judges who try criminal cases at Assizes do oppreciate that this class of case is on the increase. I do not think that crime on the whole in this country is increasing, but I think this type of ease, this low down type of case, is on the increase in certain parts of the country. But I do not think the adoption of this Resolution will do anything to decrease this kind of case. I would suggest that, if our public authorities were to give more assistance in the way of legal aid to poor people, among whom, allow me to say as a practitioner, there is quite an amount of blackmailing going on, poor people who are as much dependent on their honour and character being made public as are wealthy people—it would be a good thing if the Government were to add some more relief and more cheap advice to people who cannot in the first place afford to go and consult a lawyer. Some people seem to think lawyers live on the fat of the land.

Mr. MITCHELL: May I apologise for having spoken as a Scots lawyer, because all prosecutions are carried out by the Public Prosecutor in Scotland? What I stated in regard to money was according to my own upbringing and tradition.

Mr. DIXEY: I was not referring particularly to what the hon. Member said,
but was referring to what I think is more or less felt on the other side of the House, namely, that this Resolution only affects wealthy men. I do not want that feeling to go unchalleneged, and I should not have taken the trouble of speaking in this Debate if I did not know that, in addition to wealthy men, many poorer respectable people in our towns suffer from this crime. I would ask the Home Secretary, in opposing this Motion, as I hope he will, because he himself, as a lawyer, knows that the principle contained in it is bad, to express some view as to the means by which this problem may be dealt with in another way. I agree with what has been said as to newspapers, but, after all, the damage that is done by newspapers in the gross publication of numbers of these cases is nothing to the good that they do by the publication of gross moral wrongs which bring their lessons home to the people of the country. I know that certain accusations, possibly, can fairly be levelled against certain newspapers, on account of the way in which they publish these cases, but to my mind that is a small ill compared with the criminal responsibility that would rest upon any Government if they allowed secret trials. As hon. Gentlemen opposite know, once you admit that principle in this country, you never know where it is going to stop. Therefore, although I appreciate in told what the Mover of this Resolution has in mind, I nevertheless feel bound to oppose it, because it offends, to my mind, against one of the greatest principles of English justice.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I only want to intervene for a moment, and I do so because I am not a lawyer, while most of those who have spoken to-night have been lawyers. I approach this question from another point of view altogether. I have some connection with the Press, and I agree very largely with what the last speaker said, namely, that the most important thing we can do, taking it all in all, is to preserve the most effective aid to public morals that we can have, and that is the good opinion of one's friends, which can only be secured, in the long run, by free publicity. If once we begin to tamper with the rights of free publication, if once we begin to create an impression that rich men, for one reason or another, may secure the hear-
ing of their trials in camera, if once we create the opinion among the people that rich men may have vices, that they may have committed offences, or, at any rate, that they may have been charged with committing offences and there may be something in it, but the public is not allowed to get to know of it, it will do more than anything else to destroy the reputation that the Law Courts have: n this country, and I believe deservedly have, for impartiality and fair play, and that will be ruinous to the whole social structure of this country. I am afraid, however, that I hardly agree with the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell) when he says that he would leave the matter of what should be published to the discretion and good taste of the newspaper managers in this country.

Mr. MITCHELL: I said the writers.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Well, in the long run it is the managers, and not the writers, who decide what shall be published, and if one is going to leave it to the unfettered discretion and good taste of the managers of certain publications in this country, I am afraid one is admitting a very large principle, to which this House ought to give careful consideration before it endorses it. The amount of prurience, of public filth and muck that is spewed out on the public Sunday after Sunday, is, surely, not an aid to public morals, and it surely says nothing whatever for the discretion and good taste of those who manage the publications which inflict this muck on the public week by week. I think that somehow or other the Administration, the Government of this country, will require to face up to the question how far the legitimate rights of free publication and free criticism are consistent with these weekly searchings out—because it is nothing less—of all the mucky and filthy cases that can be got in the Divorce Courts and Law Courts of the country, deliberately picking out what they call the sensational and juicy bits and publishing them with lurid headlines and flaming placards all over the country, not for any public purpose at all, but purely for the sake of raising additional revenue for the proprietors of these publications. I think that in the long run the Home Secretary, the Government of the day, and this House, will require to consider how far the rights of
free publication, which I admit must be preserved, are consistent with this weekly invasion of the sanctity of every home in the land with the filth to which I have referred.
I agree entirely with the general position that has been taken up by most of the speakers, that you simply cannot afford to give power to the Judges to hear these cases in camera, or you will destroy all faith in your legal system. I disagree entirely with the hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee), who seconded the Resolution, in his definition of blackmail. He said that blackmail started because the wandering tribes from the North swept down into the fat plains of the South and seized the property of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's ancestors. I am afraid that that is not the definition of blackmail that we have been accustomed to get north of the Cheviots. Blackmail, I think, means illegitimate rent. The Home Secretary will probably correct me if I am wrong, but I think that that is good law. It was black, that is to say, it was unfair, and it usually took the form of the strong pillaging the weak.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Subletting.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes. I see that another freebooter from the North has arrived, and he, being a lawyer by profession, may be able to confirm, from personal knowledge of his own profession, that my definition of blackmail is correct.

Mr. BUCHANAN: He is not a bad sort, though he is a lawyer.

Mr. JOHNSTON: My considered conclusion, for what it is worth, is that these cases, if only the muck could have been kept out—and I do not presume to decide how that could be done—are an aid to public morals. They have allowed millions of the decent people who produce the wealth of the country, the people who are the backbone of the country physically, mentally, morally, and in every way, to see how the idle, useless, parasitic rich spend their time, and it is right and proper that we ought to know what the Princes and the Rajahs, the idle good-for-nothings who pillage the nation, do with their time, and how they spend their money, and I think in the long run it will do much for the cleansing of the
social structure that we should let clay-light into these cases, and let the public know how the parasites live, because when the public know that all these wealthy, idle good-for-nothings, whom we have been taught to look up to and reverence as wealthy people, who are wealthy because Providence supplied them with their wealth owing to their superior virtues and brains and knowledge—when they see that these people are idle, stupid, useless, vicious and dissolute, I think we shall get a healthier public opinion in the long run which will enable us to deal with those people and the class they represent. While I trust something will be done to stop the publication of the prurience and the muck, I hope the Home Secretary will not agree to the holding of trials in camera, but will take some other steps, if such other steps can be taken—I frankly do not know what they are, and I cannot suggest them—to preserve public morals, while at the same time leaving to everyone the knowledge that the Law Courts are open and free. And if they could only hp made cheap, which they are not now, people would be much more satisfied that they are getting a square deal than certainly they will be if you close them in the cases in which the idle rich are concerned.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The hon. Member will forgive me if I say he has spoiled a good speech by introducing what was not really relevant. I will not say more than that, because we have had an excellent Debate, one of those Debates in which the House shows its interest in public concerns, and its desire to do what is right. I should like to join not merely in the congratulations to my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Resolution but also to the Deputy-Speaker, in that he had the privilege of sitting to hear a maiden speech from his son which certainly called to my mind the well-known expression of Mr. Gladstone when the present Foreign Secretary made his maiden speech, that it was a speech to gladden the heart of his father. My hon. and gallant Friend rather apologised to the House for bringing this forward, and said it might be considered a small matter. I do not think so. It is really a very important question now, and one of those matters which the House
of Commons is not only entitled but r think ought to take into consideration from time to time. We are not merely sent here to discuss party politics, but to discuss matters of this kind which are of vital importance to the well-being of the country, and to consider, as a deliberative Assembly, whether the proposal made by my hon. and gallant Friend is a desirable one or not. I think there is a good deal of misconception as to what blackmailing is. Blackmailing` per seis under a distinct Act of Parliament. The last Act of 1916, Sections 29 and 30, describe what it is—
Every person who utters, knowing the contents thereof, any letter or writing demanding of any person with menaces and without any reasonable or probable cause any property or valuable thing;
Utters, knowing the contents thereof, any letter or writing accusing or threatening to accuse any other person of any crime to which this Section applies, with intent to extort or gain thereby any property or valuable thing from any person;
Or accuses or threatens to accuse either that person or any other person of any such crime.
The law takes such a very strong view of blackmailing that it imposes a penalty under this Act of Parliament of penal servitude for life, and if it was committed by a boy under 15, he may be privately whipped in addition.
My hon. and gallant Friend suggested to me that I should after the Debate consult my legal advisers. I have done that before the Debate. I have had a consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Sir Archibald Bodkin, who is well known to the House, is responsible for all big public prosecutions and has more knowledge of crime, I suppose, than any other human being. One is bound in a Debate of this kind to mention unpleasant subjects. I should like to say that the blackmailing that takes place in this country is not very much of the type suggested by an hon. Member opposite in regard to seduction by rich men's sons. There is very little, blackmailing in connection with that. The horrible position is that the bulk of blackmailing is for the far worse crime of sodomy, the threat of exposing which is the foundation of a very large proportion of the blackmailing that goes on in this country. It is a, most disgusting and terrible thing that that should be the case. But I am bound to say, on
the advice of so very able an officer as the Director of Public Prosecutions, that he does not think it would be desirable to pass this Resolution. I am bound to put his opinion before the House, and to say also that I agree with him. At present trials of a most unpleasant character, like incest, which used to be tried in camera are now tried, and I think rightly, in public, and the opinion of the Judges is that it is desirable that they should be, because there was undoubtedly throughout many parts of the country a feeling that this horrible crime was not a crime at all, and the publication of the severe punishment which is the result of that crime is doing a great deal to stop the crime itself. The only crime really now tried in camera as a matter of fact is a crime under the Official Secrets Act, and then only in special cases where the Judge exercises his discretion.
I want the House to realise that there are a large number of cases on the borderline of blackmail, of a type similar to blackmail, dealing with offences of a cognate character, which are not, and are not proposed under this Resolution to be tried in camera Take, for instance, a case such as occurred a few days ago, where a man advertised for typists and behaved indecently to them. It was very difficult indeed for some time to get that man convicted. because, quite naturally, the women did not wish to come forward and give the necessary evidence. That is not a ease of blackmail at all. That case would not have been covered in any sense by the Resolution. One knows also a large number of cases connected with cognate offences where parents will not allow prosecutions to take place because they will not allow their children to come and give evidence of the offences which have been committed against them. All these have just as much right to be heard in camera as cases of blackmail. I am sure if I were to go through the whole gamut of what I may call offensive crime, there is a great deal to be said for trying the whole of them in camera, but I am convinced that it would not be desirable to do that at all. It would not be desirable in the interests of justice, and in the interests of the confidence which the community desires to have in the administration of the Courts of Law. They want to know that the law
is being administered without fear and without favour, and with equal justice to rich or poor, whether it be the prosecutor or the criminal who is rich or poor.
My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the case of a Welsh gardener who had been blackmailed for many years by the husband of a gipsy, because he had accused him of infidelity with his wife. The gardener declined to take proceedings, quite obviously, because he did not want to tell his own wife of the suggested infidelity. The real difficulty is that if you prosecute in these cases your wife, your family, and your immediate friends are bound to know. It is the publication to the wife, the family and the friends that is the real difficulty. It is not simply the publication in the newspapers. That is why this unfortunate gardener could not screw up his courage. Whether the charge was well founded or not, and whether there had been infidelity or not, makes no difference in regard to blackmail.
The question of whether the crime has been committed or not does not matter. No evidence is allowed to be given on that point. It is as much blackmail to accuse a man of a crime which he has not committed as to accuse him of a crime which he has committed, so long as money is demanded as the price of silence. The essence of blackmail is the demanding of money as the price of silence. If a man goes to Court in a country district, which is the local police Court, his wife and people in the immediate surroundings learn of the proceedings, and you cannot prevent them. You cannot clear the Court. It is obvious that you must have an open Court in this land. You may prevent, if you like, publication in the newspapers, but you must, at least, have an open Court. The man goes to the. police Court where the case may be heard once or twice. Then it is sent for trial, and it goes on to the local Assize town. I do not see how the information that so-and-so is prosecuting in a case of blackmail can fail to get out to the wife and family and the immediate friends, from whom the one who is complaining wishes to keep it secret. This Resolution, if it were carried into law, would not prevent the people whom one would naturally wish to remain in ignorance from hearing of the case.
It is very difficult to suggest any legislation which would meet this particular case. We have seen, quite recently, two cases in which the name of a party in the ease was kept private. One case has been mentioned here to-night, where the name of an Indian Prince was, for certain reasons which were considered good, kept secret. That name was known all over the world, except in England. The name was published in every Continental newspaper, it was published in America, and it got over to India quite easily. Meanwhile, the whole of this country burned with a desire to know the name, and before very long the name came out. There is a case going on now, to which I will not refer except to say that the name of a General, who is dead, was mentioned as General X. Not more than a few days had expired before the Judge said that he thought it was desirable that the name should be mentioned. I put it to the House that an attempt to keep things of that sort secret really leads to more curiosity on the part of the public. It causes more people to be interested in the case.
There is power to-day on the part of any Judge or magistrate, and it is in certain cases a discretion which is exercised, to allow any witness to give his evidence anonymously, provided that the name mentioned to the prosecutor, the prosecuting counsel, the defending counsel, the prisoner and the jury. That is a power which is sometimes exercised, and I am not at all sure that it would not be better that we should consider whether the Judges, in very special cases—and I think we could trust them—

Major CRAWFURD: Is that in open Court or in closed Court?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am all for open Courts. Any magistrate or Judge in any Court can allow a witness to give his or her evidence anonymously.

Major CRAWFURD: Not in a closed Court.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In open Court, provided the name is communicated to the other side, to the prisoner and the jury. The
10.0 P.M.
Public Prosecutor and some of His Majesty's Judges are seriously concerned in regard to this question of blackmail. They are seriously concerned as to the number of cases, of
a disreputable character occasionally, and the difficulty of dealing with them adequately. I am not going to discuss that question to-night, because it would need very careful consideration by the Government. I do not say more than that. It is the opinion of the Public Prosecutor that we may have to ask the House of Commons to inflict a more serious penalty than is in operation at the present time.
One hon. Member said, quite rightly, that this is a crime committed by cowards upon cowards. The coward who is being blackmailed is just as much entitled to the protection of the Courts as the brave man. Many of us may be cowards in regard to that matter. It is not only in cases where there is no secret, but the case of the blackmail is often as bad where there is a secret, and where some unfortunate man maybe 10 or 20 years ago has been seduced into one of these horrible crimes for the very purpose of blackmail. Many cases which the police have under their cognisance are cases where young men have been seduced into these crimes, for the very purpose of leading them a life of blackmail for years to come. It is the coward with whom we have to deal, and the view of the public prosecutor is that we should, if necessary, and if the crime goes on as it is going on, ask the House of Commons to give us power to inflict the penalty of flogging. That is a very serious proposition.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You already have the penalty of penal servitude for life. Is it intended to increase the penalty?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Do not let the hon. and gallant Member assume that I am making that proposal to the House to-night. I am doing nothing of the kind: but I always feel when I am speaking to the House in a responsible position that I ought to tell the House everything that is in my mind, or in the mind of my advisers. Quite definitely, this crime is of such importance, of such prevalence, of such malignance, of such cruelty, and is of such a despicable character, that I am advised by the Public Prosecutor, and in that advice the Lord Chief Justice of England concurs, that if the crime goes on undiminished, we may have to ask the House for the very exceptional penalty that I have named.
I do not want to do it. I would hope, if possible, that the mere mention of the statement which I have made, in all the criminal quarters of this country and particularly in the criminal purlieus of London where these crimes are hatched, where there are known to be men who are living on these crimes, and where there is, of course, this great difficulty of getting people to prosecute, that there is this idea in the minds of the Home Secretary and his advisers, and in the minds of some of the most experienced of His Majesty's Government, will do something to diminish this crime and stop it in many cases. Because, after all, as has been well said, this crime is the crime of a coward, and a coward may take fright at the suggestion of the punishment which I have indicated and the crimes may then cease. I hope that that may be true. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not think it necessary to carry this Resolution to a Division. It is a very difficult question and one which has caused me a great deal of thought. I would like to do anything in my power to make it easier for these disreputable criminals to be found, but I do not think, on the advice of my responsible, legal advisers, in which the Director of Public Prosecutions concurs, that the Resolution, if carried out in an Act of Parliament, would have the effect which my hon. and gallant Friend desires. I can only thank him for having brought the matter to the attention of the House of Commons. This Debate has been a most useful one, and, having called attention to this form of crime, it may render it less likely and less frequent in the future.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Under the present law blackmail is punishable by a sentence up to penal servitude for life. Apparently that is not a sufficient deterrent, and the right bon. Gentleman is considering the addition of corporal punishment—flogging. I hope that that policy will not be pursued by the Government. The whole trend of modern thought with regard to crime is against corporal punishment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not think that hon. Members opposite who say "No" are really in touch with modern thought on this subject. To go back to what is a form of torture would be a distinctly retrograde step. I do not want to pursue
this matter further. It is hardly relevant to the main purposes of the Debate, but I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think very seriously before he adds this to the number of crimes for which the punishment of flogging can be inflicted. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to get away from the main difficulty, that is, the question of public opinion. We all agree with him as to the necessity of having an open Court. The closed Court, as the hon. Member for Dundee remarked, would only lead to suspicion and talk against the sanctity and impartiality of the law, and also, if it is not going to be universally applied, there would be danger that the mass of the people would consider that there was influence in favour of people who have friends in Court. But it seems to me that the question which has got to be faced, and which cannot be shirked, is the question of public opinion.
I do hope that the Government will take steps to prevent the broadcasting of the horrible details of these and similar crimes in the newspapers. We on these benches can claim, I think, to be as jealous for the freedom of the Press as any other Members of the House, and I hope that the House will resist any attempt to muzzle the liberty of the Press. At the same time, I think many people in this country—and their number is increasing—view with alarm the excessive space that is given to unnecessary details in recent cases. I admit that, from the point of view of the hon. Member for Dundee, it may be a good thing to ventilate these things, and allow the fresh air of publicity to illumine these dark places in our social life. At the same time, what can be the effect of reading the detailed reports of recent cases on very young people and children, who are just able to read, young lads and girls? It has a good deal of value or it would not occupy so much space in the papers, but I believe that it is only one or two newspapers which wish to feature these cases and that the others have to follow suit.
It is a most difficult question, but I come back to the immediate object of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion. We want to make it easy for people who are blackmailed to have recourse to the law. We admit that the closed Court is objectionable. Therefore perhaps the Home Secretary will consider, not a question of legislation, but
calling some conference with newspaper proprietors to see whether more reticence could not be exercised by the Press in certain cases of this sort. I am not now pleading for the cloak of secrecy over the doings of a certain section of society. The more they are shown up the better. I am thinking of this particular crime of blackmail and the unfortunate victims. During the War the Press behaved admirably. There was no special law passed, but I do not believe that there was a single case in which a British newspaper betrayed the confidence of the authorities.

Mr. LANSBURY: What about D.O.R.A.?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think that that was exercised only once in the case of the "Globe" in the course of the whole War.

Mr. LANSBURY: The "Morning Post."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My hon. Friend knows more about the Press than I, but generally speaking the censorship was exercised by a request to the newspaper people themselves. I would suggest to the Home Secretary that he should hold a conference with the principal newspaper people of this country, to see whether this admittedly black spot could not be put right. It is, I think, admitted generally that it is unwholesome that the details of these cases should be reported verbatim in the public Press. It must lead to many disastrous things in our social life, and I would ask whether something could not be done without legislation. As an immediate practical step I would suggest that there should be a conference of the kind which I have indicated with the Press in order to get over the difficulty, but so strongly do I feel upon this matter, that if my hon. and gallant Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.

Mr. BUCHANAN rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Debate seems to me to be now raising a new subject.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I agree with the Home Secretary in what he has said about the nature of this crime. My experience in the City of Glasgow coincides with his. The question of seduction of a woman by a man is never the object of blackmail in that city. The chief object
of blackmail is the crime of sodomy. I may refer to a quite recent experience in the City of Glasgow itself. The City Prosecutor had before him a case in which a number of men who are well known to the police were concerned They were without dress, or any male attire, but with tight fitting jackets; and all that; with their hands finely chiselled—far more finely chiselled than, say, the hands of my wife; who called each other by female names, used the scents common to women, and even painted. They were known to the police. In nearly every charge of blackmail, or in nearly every case where blackmail was suspected, it was a comparatively well-to-do man who was concerned. It is very rarely that there is blackmail amongst the poor. I have my own views as to that, and I will merely say that I think working people are more moral. They do not lend themselves to this sort of thing. In the cases I have mentioned the Glasgow police knew these men and knew that they frequented a certain station particularly. Most of the cases went hand-in-hand with strong drink. I remember that in one case the police knew that a certain man was being blackmailed. Ultimately they arrested four or five men, who went under the vulgar name of "white hats." The whole difficulty was that the man who was being blackmailed, whose business was being ruined, would not come forward to give evidence because of the terrible effect it would have on his family and on his business life. The problem is that, generally speaking, the ordinary crime as between men and women is not the heinous offence that men need to be ashamed of so much as the crime known as sodomy.
My own feeling is that I would go almost to the extent of suppressing accounts of such cases: No man who was brought up in the strict Presbyterian circles, in which most of us were brought up, wishes to see or read that sort of thing, or cares to think that his children or relatives, particularly the young folk, would know anything of the sordid and cruel details of some divorce cases. One sometimes sees young people in our public libraries reading reports of these cases. I know that anything bad of that kind, read when young, may have its effect in after life. My moral sense tells me that
something ought to be done to suppress that information. Yet you have to consider the other side. Suppose you make publication unlawful. What do you find then? You find that you have not kept the details of a case from leaking out. You find that the details come out against a man in the form of tittle-tattle, which very often is much more injurious to him than would be a statement of the whole of the facts. I remember a case in Scotland at the time when I used to visit prisons and take a keen interest in prison administration. I always found that the blackmailer was a man whom you very rarely caught. I am not sure that if you increase the punishment to flogging you would stamp out blackmailing. The crimes in question do not lend themselves to prosecution at all.
There is only one thing to hope for. I think that the great thing is to go back to education, to an attempt to deal with the social conditions of our own children in the future. That is the only way to try to deal with it, though I do not believe you will ever thoroughly succeed. The only hope is not in the direction of suppression in the Courts or the suppression of publication in the newspapers, for while it is not an evil arising purely out of social conditions, yet partly that is the case. Every one of the men who follow this trade of sodomy—and it is a trade, I am sorry to say among some men—an occupation—every one of those men is, more or less, the product of the cruel sort of social life in which they are brought up. It has partly grown up out of social conditions and I do not think you will stamp it out merely by repressive punishments like flogging. The only hope is that the country in the future may see to it that there is better education for the people, better social and housing conditions o and that we shall bring up a type of men who will rebel against selling themselves in this cruel and fearful fashion. Each of us must try, by spreading such knowledge as we possess among all the folk whom we meet, to create a detestation of this crime. I do not know of any subject which bristles with so many difficulties as the subject of blackmail, and I hope the Home Secretary, before embarking on any further steps, will inquire into the problem from all angles and will not be guided by the
opinions of public prosecutors or Chief Justices or even of the legal profession generally, important as these may be. but will also take the opinion of the people in regard to a wider sphere of life and in relation to all classes of the community, and in that way gain a thorough and comprehensive knowledge. I agree with him as to dealing with the man who acts in such a cruel and brutal manner to his fellow human beings, but I hope that whatever steps are taken he will bear in mind what I have said. Our duty as Members of Parliament is not merely to suggest long sentences and floggings, but is to find some solution for the problem, and punishment alone is not a solution. We must find some means of preventing men from entering into criminal careers at all. I wish the Home Secretary well in his efforts, and I am sure I speak for all those associated with me when I say that if we can do anything to help him to stamp out this cruel crime it will not only be our task but our duty to this House, to our constituents, and. above all, to the working class.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to make a reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the allusion of the Home Secretary to the possibility of flogging. I had the privilege of visiting Brixton Prison on Sunday last, and one of the cases brought to my notice by the Governor was of that class referred to by the hon. Member. Any Member of the House visiting that cell and coming into contact with the personality of the man would agree that this was the last crime with which one would associate him. He was a man of fine appearance and was gentle in demeanour, and yet the Governor informed me that he represented one of the most dangerous types of criminals. His point of view was that in this case, and I am sure it applies to others, it is a question of mentality. There must be others like this man who have gone into the depths of degradation, which suggests the great importance of going very fully into the question of mentality. When you study some of the peculiarities associated with those who have gone very far astray—this is not directly applicable to this Motion, but it is an illustration of the idea I have in my mind—you will sometimes find a type of individual who has been frequently convicted, and, if it
is in connection with stealing, it is remarkable that sometimes you will find a man stealing always the same class of thing. I have known of one man who was addicted to stealing, and his invariable practice. was to steal painters' steps. There is some peculiarity about these phases of our criminal life. I was very struck also when the Governor of the prison pointed out the eradicating of the broad arrow, which so stigmatised the criminal, the providing of a different typo of clothing, a system that was originated, I believe, by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Home Secretary. There is also the provision of lectures and concerts, all for the purpose of elevation. That leads us to the line of argument indicated by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), that there is a modern thought, not simply prevalent on these benches, but already applicable in our prison life, and it is well worthy of serious consideration when you are dealing with matters of this kind.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: I hope the Home Secretary will not be influenced in his administration of penal laws by some of the ultra-sentimental suggestions that have been made to-night. Undoubtedly, there are many persons to whom a good flogging is the only punishment that they really understand, and where the Home Secretary is advised that the cases are increasing in which punishment of that kind can be administered in the public interest, I hope he will not hesitate in the matter. The case referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) shows, I think, that we are in danger of making prison life too easy for those who are addicted to it. Prison life ought to be such that those who are committed to it have not the slightest inclination to go back to it once they are free; and there is to-day an unfortunate tendency to encourage a certain class of individual who, on liberation from a teem of imprisonment, is only too pleased to think that a further term may soon be awarded to him. Therefore, prison administration should be so maintained as to avoid those inducements in the form of sentimental treatment of wrongdoers, so that our prison population is not encouraged to increase, but will be kept within limits. I am sorry that the Home
Secretary, in his reply, felt that he could not accept this Motion, because there is a strong feeling in many quarters that legislation on the lines indicated would be of advantage. At any rate, we have his assurance that the matter has his keen attention, and, knowing him as we do, I think we can very well, on this occasion, leave the matter in his hands. I only hope he will not be swayed by sloppy, sentimental humbug, and that he will administer the criminal and penal laws in the most rigid manner possible.

Captain HOPE: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. LANSBURY rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member object to the Motion being withdrawn?

Mr. LANSBURY: I do for the moment. I did not intend to speak at all, but I wish to say to the Home Secretary that there are a few of us here, whether two, six, or 600, who will oppose with the most bitter opposition any proposal to inflict any more punishment in the way of flogging anyone for any crime. The absurdity of the hon. Member's position is shown in the fact that the more brutal the punishment has been, the less repressive of crime has it been. I speak as one who has seen the interior of a prison. People who have never been through the experience do not understand. I have nothing to say about my own experience in prison. I was not a martyr. I was there because I chose to be there, and I have nothing to say in complaint of my treatment while there, but when I saw other human beings like me, degraded in the position they were, I was certain you could not drive out one devil by another devil, and you could not cast out evil by evil. That is all I want to say about punishment, because I do not want to take up the time of the House. As to the Press, having had very long experience of it, I say it is not the newspaper editors, it is not even the proprietors of the newspapers; it is the British public that like to read filth, and get what they ask for day by day. The journals with the biggest circulation, Sunday and weekdays, are those which give the fullest report of the most foul trials and things that happen in ordinary life. It is the ordinary British public that has got to
be converted, and it is no use thinking that any sort of repression of newspapers will have any effect. When we have got a cleaner, wholesomer public opinion, and when the public do not want to read filth, they will not have filth sold to them.

Question,
That, having regard to the recent increase in blackmailing crimes, to which attention has been drawn by several of His Majesty's Judges, and seeing that only a comparatively small proportion of blackmailers are brought to justice and punished by reason of the unwillingness of the victim to prosecute, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that legislation should be introduced as soon as possible to enable all such cases to be tried in camera,

put, and negatived.

MENTAL HOSPITALS.

Mr. TAYLOR: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, a reform of the conditions existing in Mental Hospitals is of urgent importance.
As a Royal Commission is taking evidence on the mental hospitals, and reviewing the whole question of changes in the law, and with regard to the detention and segregation of patients, I do not propose to waste the time of the House by traversing ground which is being much more effectively dealt with elsewhere. I do, however, find in the Departmental Report, published last July, the following paragraph on page 45:
We wish to make a strong appeal to visiting committees and to officers of authority in public mental hospitals to give effect to our recommendations at a very early date.
A little lower down on the same page is the following observation:
In order to carry out the recommendations. they must be adopted generally.
I want to offer some very short remarks about the conditions under which the mental hospital staff are working. That Commission reconsidered the matter with particular reference to the question of the nursing staff, and discovered that there were, roughly, four groups. First of 'all, there were the mental hospitals that had already adopted the 48-hour week, and were working with three eight-hour shifts per day. In these the
conditions were, on the whole, better for the patients and better for the staff than in any other group. In the second group were a number of mental hospitals in which the average number of hours per week worked was 56. In the next group the average number of hours worked per week by the nursing staff was 60. In the fourth group 66 hours per week was the number of hours worked.
I want to make this plea. There is no need to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission before giving effect to the recommendations of this committee When we consider the physical and mental strain under which this magnificent body of men and women do the dirty work of society, a work which would be repulsive were it not for their gift of human charity, kindness and love—when you consider that these people are working under conditions in which they may he subjected to physical violence; in view of the mental suffering of the patients and the degree of suffering, which is such in some cases that it leads to conditions of indescribable filth among which these people have to pass their daily lives, I do think that people who spend most of their lives looking after the insane are entitled to expect from the rest of society much better treatment than they are getting to-day.
The average wage of a fully-qualified and trained male nurse in charge of a ward is less than the minimum wage of a police probationer. I suggest to the Government that, while J believe that a forty-eight hour week in asylums could b, secured, if necessary, by legislation, an is quite long enough for people in that kind of occupation: whilst I believe that a. forty-eight hour week enables the staff to look after the patients better, to give the patient a long day, and avoid putting them to bed at seven or eight o'clock when the Summer Time Act comes into operation; whilst it allows them to keep the patients up to a reasonable time so that when they retire they are physically tired, and therefore enables all to have an easier time; while, I say, I believe that a forty-eight hours week is the right thing, still when you have the Committee which examined this specific problem 12 months ago and reported in favour of 56 hours, giving a day and a half a week compulsory holiday to the mental staffs. and when you realise there are numbers
of institutions that are actually working 60 and 66 hours per week, then I think the Board of Control might very well try through administrative action, limited thought I know the powers to be, to achieve something in the right direction. The Board of Control could, by judicious pressure, bring up the worst asylums to the level, at any rate, of the recommendations made by the Committee.
Whilst I am on my feet, perhaps the House will forgive me for drawing attention to another pressing question in regard to asylum administration. About a fortnight ago I went through an asylum and discovered about 30 boys and girls who ought not to have been there at all. According to the medical evidence of the superintendent of that institution, they were capable of being trained and educated in some degree, and they ought to have had an entirely different environment. As a matter of fact, those children were in the wards with adult patients, with idiots, and with lunatics of every degree of suffering. The medical superintendent of that institution is not keeping those children in that environment because he is not a humane man, for he is a most humane and efficient administrator, but the difficulty is that there is no alternative accommodation. He has made representations to the local authorities with regard to those children, but the local authorities, when it comes to tackling the problem from the practical point of view, are up against the difficulty that it is necessary to embark on large capital expenditure in order to provide accommodation for mentally defective children who are now either huddled with idots in Poor Law institutions or in mental hospitals.
In areas which have suffered from abnormal unemployment, which are bearing extra burdens, where the rates are high, and where there are thousands of pounds that cannot be collected from the citizens, you have the utmost difficulty in getting local authorities to face their responsibilities with regard to these children. If the Government can do anything in the way of assisting local authorities to meet the new capital expenditure involved in giving effect to the new ideas with regard to colonies for treatment, I hope they will give it their sympathetic consideration, because even the 60 per cent. grant which, under the Mental
Deficiency Act, they can make towards capital expenditure, is not sufficient, in view of the financial position of many of the authorities. I hope the Government will not wait for the Report of the Royal Commission upon other matters, difficult matters and debatable matters—there are a great many things wrong in our mental hospitals—before doing justice, or giving an instalment of justice to the staffs who are doing the dirty work of society. and I trust the Minister will do his best to bring the worst authorities up to something like the level of the recommendations contained in the Report.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so because of the long experience I have had of these institutions. While serving for 23 years on a visiting committee, I have tried my level best to gather all the information I could as to the whole of the circumstances attached to this deplorable side of life. I am firmly convinced that thousands of people find their way into our mental hospitals who ought never to be there, seeing the class of institutions they are. There is nothing inside our hospitals that lends itself to these poor people ever becoming well again. People go there because they are mentally depressed. Through business worries or some family trouble, people become depressed, and they find themselves sent to these hospitals, where they mix with those who are hopeless maniacs. What hope can there he for this class of patient ever coming out again? I hope the Minister of Health will take this matter into his serious consideration, and introduce legislation that will give us a real hospital where people who become depressed from these causes may be sent just as freely as a patient goes to any other hospital. If that were done very much of the expenditure now incurred by local authorities would be obviated, and for these reasons I hope that in the near future we shall have some legislation on this subject. My hon. Friend who has just sat down referred to cases where a number of children in one asylum had to mix with the adults. I have known cases in my own district where this has frequently occurred.
There are one or two other points which I should like the Minister of Health to take up. I think arrangements ought
to be made to have these cases placed in charge of the health committees of the local authorities. I would also like to call attention to the insufficiency of the medical staff. Take the case of a hospital which I know very well. In that hospital there are only four doctors to attend to the needs of some 1,400 patients, and what can they do under such conditions. I think a very much larger medical service ought to be provided in those hospitals, and if that were done, in my opinion, instead of having a percentage of 19 or 20 patients recovering it could easily be increased to 40 or 50 per cent. in the near future.
With regard to nurses nearly every hospital I am acquainted with is entirely understaffed, and you find one nurse has to look after 40 or 50 patients during very long hours indeed, and no wonder they become irritable and not fit to carry out their duties. In the Durham Asylum we tried the 48 hours' week, but now the female staff are called upon to work 56 hours per week exclusive of meal times, and they have now 10 times as much sickness to deal with as they had under the 48 hours system. I trust the Home Secretary will see that more humane conditions are granted to these people who do such a very necessary work. I also want better provision made for looking after the people discharged from our asylums. In many cases what happens is very deplorable to many of us who know what actually takes place. Very often the result is that these people are taken back to the place in which they have been incarcerated so long. I appeal to the Home Secretary to take into his serious consideration this very important matter, and endeavour to make our mental hospitals real hospitals, and not so much like prisons, as they are at the present time.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am sure the whole House will have every sympathy with both the spirit and the letter of the Resolution, and I wish it were possible to-night to deal more effectually and adequately with the matter. I would, however, like to remind Members of the House that, so far as the general question to which the Seconder of the Resolution has just referred, at the
present moment, as the hon. Gentleman proposing the Motion knows, there is a Royal Commission sitting which has very wide terms of reference, and which is empowered to examine many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson). It is a Commission which is sitting under the able chairmanship of Mr. Macmillan, and its terms of reference are to inquire as regards England and Wales into the existing law and administrative machinery in connection with the certification, detention, and care of people who are or are alleged to be of unsound mind and to consider as regards England and Wales the extent to which provision is or should be made for the treatment without certification of persons suffering from mental disorder. Therefore I think the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Resolution will not feel that I lack sympathy when I say I think it would be better to await the judgment of the Report of that Commission before I indicate any views which I myself have on the matter. I inquired this evening when that Report is likely to be available. As the hon. Member knows, it is a very important subject. I anticipate that the Report of the Commission will be forthcoming next year. I think it will be time well spent if we get a, considered judgment on this matter. At present many witnesses are being heard and the Commission have to hear many others who have to come before them. I am advised that no time is lost in considering the cases, and as soon as the Report is received it will receive the immediate attention of the Department.
I wish to say upon the immediate matter raised by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution which referred particularly to a report which has not been very long issued and which is called the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the nursing service in county and borough mental hospitals. I agree, I think, with almost everything he said in his speech. If I may say so, the work of the mental nurses in this country certainly does not receive the public commendation that it ought to do. We hear—and it is often emphasised, particularly in connection with mental cases—many charges of ill-treatment, but I certainly think—and I am glad the hon. Gentleman to-night
has referred to it—that the people engaged in the very difficult and exacting task of nursing these poor people should receive every sympathy from this House and the local authorities up and down the country. It cannot be too fully recognised that the fate and cure of a very large number of people in these asylums up and down the country rest very largely in the hands of the nursing staff itself. They are the people who, day after day, have to look after these people, and my Department desire in every possible way to see that they receive sympathy and carry out their duties under the most favourable conditions. I have only to say that this Report contains many important recommendations regarding the staff of these authorities. Various methods of reform are suggested in the Report which should be adopted and the Board of Control is most anxious that, at any rate, many of the recommendations shall be adopted by the local authorities. I want to assure both hon. Gentlemen who, to-night, have made such powerful speeches, that, so far as the Board are concerned, they have done and as far as possible will do what they can to improve the conditions of people who have such difficult tasks to carry out in their every-day life. I should tell the House, however, that the difficulty is, as the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Resolution knows, that the Board of Control have no powers to enforce on the local authorities better terms and conditions with regard to mental nursing. What the Board has done, and will do, will be to keep these recommendations constantly before them, and, so far as they can, to bring them before the notice of the local authorities. The few remarks which the Seconder of the Motion made to-night will, I am sure, do good. My Department will endeavour, so far as we possibly can, to improve the conditions of a body of people whose conditions we think need improvement, but that, as the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution knows, is as far, at the present moment, as we can go.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I suggest that something might be done by increasing the miserable amount of 4s, 8d, which is allowed to the authorities? It was fixed many years ago, and I feel sure
the authorities would spend the money wisely and well.

Sir K. WOOD: I will certainly make that suggestion to my right hon. Friend, and see whether anything can be done. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is another Department that is concerned in that connection. I want, finally, to say to both hon. Gentlemen that, so far as we are concerned, we will endeavour to improve the conditions of the people in these hospitals, and will continue to bring the matter before the notice of the local authorities. By that means I hope that something may be done for a very important body of, I venture to think, deserving people. I hope that with that assurance both hon. Gentlemen will consider, having regard to the short time we have been able to discuss this matter to-night, that it will not be necessary for them to press the Motion further.

Mr. TAYLOR: In view of the fact that a certain amount of money has been placed at the disposal of the Board of Control for the purpose of encouraging local authorities to develop the provision of accommodation under the Act, will the hon. Gentleman confer with the local authorities in the worst areas, where the need is most pressing, and, if possible, increase the total amount of grant to the Board over and above the 50 per cent., in order that the most pressing needs may be met in the worst areas?

Sir K. WOOD: I will undertake to consider the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has made, and to confer with him first as to what further can be done. As he knows, I am not in a position myself to give any undertaking, but I can assure him of my personal sympathy and the anxiety of the Department to help in the matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to press the Motion?

Mr. TAYLOR: I beg to ask leave to withdraw.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THEATRICAL EMPLOYERS REGISTRATION BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I hope the House will agree to allow this Bill to go upstairs. It received the support of the last Government but one, and I hope hon. Members will consider the urgency of housing that exists, and allow this very moderate Measure to have a Second Reading. If there are any points of detail, they can be dealt with in Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has himself talked the Bill over Eleven o'Clock.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to he resumed To-morrow.

TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed.

Bill again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of amount of loans which may be guaranteed under 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 65, and extension of period for giving guarantees.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress: to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

DYESTUFFS ACT, 1921.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Captain BENN: I am very much obliged to the President of the Board of Trade for coming at this late hour to hear
the statement I propose to make in reference to a grievance under Dyestuffs Act, 1921. Under that Act an Advisory Committee was set up to advise the President of the Board of Trade as to whether or not he should exercise the powers given him under that Act to prohibit the importation of dyes from any foreign country. The complaint I have to make falls under two heads. The first refers to the general practice of the Committee. When a merchant applies to the Committee for leave to introduce a dye for one of his customers into the country, he is frequently asked, in support of his application, to give the names of the customers on whose behalf he is making the application, and it is stated by the Board of Trade themselves that these names, which constitute the goodwill of his business, are distributed to rival firms, who apply to those customers and seek to serve their needs. If you allow that a merchant is performing a useful function and the man who imports something is causing an export in return and assisting the trade of the country, it seems hard that machinery which was never intended for that purpose should be used to push the merchant out of his trade and give away what is the good will of any business, namely, its clientéle, to his rivals. This is not an occasional practice, and it is not one for which the Committee is in the least responsible. What I am saying is not any reflection upon the conduct of that Committee, which consists of able business men who are giving their services in the public interest to carry out what was the wish of the House. The responsibility for this practice must rest with the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, and I ask him whether it is a fact, as stated in correspondence—and I think he can hardly deny it—that this information is given to the competitors of the people who ask for permission to import dyes, and, if so, what justification there is for it. Now I come to a specific case. This is not a party question, but purely one of business. There is a firm of printers—I will not give the name, although there is no objection to my doing so—who want to import a certain printing ink from France. Anyone who knows the business of printing knows how severe is the competition between our own colour printers and the colour printers of the Continent.
A great deal of imported colour work comes in, for various reasons, and makes the competition with our own printers very severe. This firm applied for permission to import a certain French ink. They wrote to the Committee and explained their requirements. The Committee replied:
There is a firm in England which makes an ink which is quite suitable for you.
The firm replied, very courteously, and said:
The ink that you suggest, will not suit our job.
It is to be presumed that these printers, carrying on their business, have more idea of their requirements than has the President of the Board of Trade or his Department. The Department then replied and said, in effect:
You must show that the ink which we suggest is not satisfactory.
Accordingly, the printers went to a great deal of trouble, and wrote a long letter to the Board of Trade, explaining in great technical detail some of the reasons why this ink of British manufacture, which the President of the Board of Trade wishes them to purchase, is not suitable for the task in which they are engaged. Thereupon, they were told, curtly, by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, that they could not have the French ink, and in consequence the firm complain that they are going to lose the business in which they are engaged.
I ask any Member of the House, of any party, whether there can be any justification for a course of that kind. It is a hindrance to trade. If the case is as I have stated, and I have not the least reason to doubt the bona-fides of my correspondent, whose name I have supplied to the right hon. Gentleman—

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The hon. and gallant Member says that he has supplied me with the name. That is true, but he knows that he supplied it to me It 6.15 this evening. The information, necessarily, being entirely in the hands of the Licensing Committee, will have to be obtained from Manchester, and it could not be obtained at that hour.

Captain BENN: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to try to ride off on the Licensing Committee. These gentlemen come forward in order to give service for the public good.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Member must not misrepresent me. What I said was that at 6.15 this evening it was impossible to obtain information which can only be obtained from Manchester.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman is making his usual defence, namely, that the people who come forward to assist him with their business experience are to bear the responsibility, although it is his responsibility. The Act, of Parliament does not say anything about the Licensing Committee being responsible for decisions. It says that the President of the Board of Trade shall grant licences, and he has the great advantage of the assistance of business men.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Hear, hear!

Captain BENN: To try to put the blame on them, when he is responsible, is an act which is not worthy of the holder of a great office. The hon. Member knows the name of the firm, and I ask him whether he denies the facts that I have brought forward, and, if not, what justification there is for the action which I have described, which is a severe hindrance to British commerce.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Member has raised two points. One is a specific case, and I am not in the least desiring to ride off on the Licensing Committee. The whole House has the fullest confidence in that Committee. Successive Governments have relied on that Committee of very able business men, who are doing a not very easy job in an impartial way. It is an Advisory Committee which consists of three makers, five users, and three independent persons, including two distinguished Members of this House. What I have said to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I have no intention that there should be any misrepresentation on the record, however suitable it may be to any purpose which he has in mind—

Captain BENN: A most improper observation.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I take full responsibility for the administration of the Act and I am duly grateful to the Committee which administers the Act thoroughly and impartially. What I have
said is that as the whole matter is in the hands of the Committee, and quite rightly in their hands—and I take full responsibility for what they do—and as the name was supplied at a quarter past six in the evening and it was not possible to obtain full information from Manchester between a quarter past six and 11 o'clock, I will have inquiries made into this case. The Board of Trade in London know nothing of it, for the very good reason that we have complete confidence in the Committee and are perfectly content to leave the whole administration in their hands, which is exactly what it was said we should do when this Act went through the House of Commons. Therefore I propose to say nothing with regard to the particular case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought forward, and which he did not bring forward in the question which he asked me to-day, which was a perfectly general question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the administration of this Act is left to a Committee, are we to take it that this House has no control over what is done in Lancashire? Do we hand over the full control of the administration of this Act to that Committee?

Major CRAWFURD: I have the Act in my hand, and the section relevant to that point says that the Board of Trade have power by licence to authorise either generally or in any particular case the importation of any goods, etc.—The Board of Trade have power.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been present at the Debate in this House he would know that the condition on which the House passed the Dyes Act—and a very proper condition—was that the administration of the licences should be vested in the Committee established by the Act, the proportion of the membership and the position of the Committee having been the subject of discussion in the House and the subject of an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne), who was then President of the Board of Trade, which undertaking has been carried out.

Major CRAWFURD: It is clear that the responsibility lies with the Board of
Trade. Surely that responsibility cannot he divested by the Board of Trade and transferred to another body.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has repeated what he said before. I accept full responsibility, and I have sufficient confidence and the great majority of this House has in the hon. Member for Stretford (Sir Thomas Robinson), who has presided over it for some years, and the other Members of the Committee, and I am ready to take full responsibility for any action which the Committee may take. In taking that responsibility, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, I am doing exactly what my predecessor undertook in this House that he would do, and what every successive President of the Board of Trade has done, and there is nothing which Lancashire would desire less than that the Board of Trade should take the practical working of the day-to-day granting of licences out of the hands of the experienced Committee and vest it in a number of officials in London. Certainly I am not going to do anything of the sort. I take full responsibility for what the Committee do but I will not fetter the discretion of the Committee in any action which they take from time to time. With regard to the special case of which I know nothing, I am not in a position to make any statement, but I make this statement without knowing the facts, but knowing the record of the Committee, that I am certain that the Committee treated this case as carefully and impartially as they treat the 300 or 400 cases that come before them every month.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to a question of general policy. There has been no change in that matter. Of course, the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I agree to differ as to what ought to be done in these matters. Those who are responsible for passing the Act or for its administration are anxious for the successful establishment and development of a dyes industry in this country. I appreciate that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is rot. But he can hardly expect me to administer an Act, the object of which is to establish, if possible, an industry, the lack of which was a great disaster to this country in the War, in a way that will defeat the Act's whole object. When he and whoever may be his
allies for the time being come into power, they will have an opportunity, I hope not to administer the Act so as to defeat it, but of taking the more honest course of repealing it. It will be time enough to consider that when he comes into power, but as long as we remain in power—our predecessors of the Labour party carried out the same policy—we shall carry out the Act in the spirit in which it was passed and with the assistance of, and full confidence in, the very able Committee which advises us.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that there is something unfair in inviting agents in special cases—it is only in special cases—to disclose the names of would-be purchasers. I can tell him that it is only in special cases, because in the month of January there were 443 applications, and in only 12 of these were agents asked to furnish the names of consumers. In February there were 472 applications and in only 13 cases was the request made. That shows that this is not so much the rule as the exception. The exception is made in a perfectly proper case; it is made when there is a dispute as to whether the dye which the British maker-can furnish is a suitable dye for the purpose. So far from the onus being in such cases upon the man who wants to use it, the Committee have always put the onus of showing that a suitable dye is available on the British producer of the dye. That is a perfectly right thing to do. In order that the Committee may be satisfied in such a case as to whether there is a suitable British dye available, and in order that they may be able to test by proof put before them by the British producer of the dye whether a suitable dye is or is not available, it is necessary that the person who is to be the direct user of the dye sought to be imported and the alternative producers in this country should he brought into contact and should have a chance of proving their case. Therefore this rule, which is the exception, is laid down in the direct interest of the consumer, not the merchant but the consumer, the printer, the dyer, as the case may be, who requires a dye. to suit his purpose. This rule is laid down, started by the Committee with my full approval in the interest of the Lancashire calico printer or dyer or colour user, in order
that the Committee may be satisfied as to whether or not there is a British dye available for the purpose. So far from there being anything improper in that, it seems to me to be a practical and sensible way in which practical men would find whether or not there was a suitable dye available for the purpose. I propose to continue to administer this Act in the spirit in which it was passed. I am well aware that there may be cases where the importer—not a printer, not a dyer, but the importer, the commission agent—might think it convenient to import "on spec" large numbers of foreign dyes not required for the immediate purpose of printers or colour users. It is not the purpose of the Act to enable that to be done. That Act was passed in order that an effective dye industry might be established. It is worked in such a way that there is a full and practical understanding between the colour-users the people who employ labour in the printing trades, the dyeing trades, the textile trades—and the producers of dyes. It is always the active concern of the Board of Trade to see that the most harmonious relations and the most practical working arrangements exist between the producers of dyes and the users of dyes in this country. But it is not the purpose of the Act, it is not the interest of the Board of Trade, and it is not, I think, the purpose of this country as long as this Act remains on the Statute Book, to afford speculators the opportunity of importing dyes at cheap prices, which they will probably sell at a considerably higher price. Where it is not required by printers and dyers it is certainly not required by any other person. We shall continue that Act with the advice and assistance of the Committee which has worked well in the past. We shall not be diverted from that purpose, nor will the Committee, nor will, I think, o the users of British dyes be diverted by such criticisms as those which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has advanced.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE rose—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present, House counted, and 40 Members not being present, the House was adjourned at Twenty-five minutes after Eleven of the Clock until To-morrow.